Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:36:53 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 14:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > I'm personally curious as to what kind of scheduler issues this results > > > in--I haven't done any BFS vs CFS tests with this option enabled yet. > > > > I'll look for x264 source, and patch/piddle. > > btw., would be nice to look at it via tools/perf/ as well: > > perf stat --repeat 3 ... > > to see the basic hardware utilization (cycles/cache-misses, branch execution > rate, instructions, etc.) and the basic parallelism metrics, at a glance. > > i suspect "perf stat -e L1-icache-loads -e L1-icache-load-misses" would give > us an even more detailed picture.
Almost virgin v2.6.32-10468-g020307d running 'medium'.
encoded 600 frames, 36.52 fps, 13003.54 kb/s
Performance counter stats for './x264.sh 8' (3 runs):
63742.218844 task-clock-msecs # 3.870 CPUs ( +- 0.016% ) 42593 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.487% ) 3011 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.417% ) 12862 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.004% ) 151734450892 cycles # 2380.439 M/sec ( +- 1.947% ) (scaled from 71.44%) 205642315207 instructions # 1.355 IPC ( +- 0.085% ) (scaled from 80.68%) 16274905932 branches # 255.324 M/sec ( +- 0.080% ) (scaled from 80.67%) 1257135617 branch-misses # 7.724 % ( +- 0.255% ) (scaled from 80.06%) 3116653323 cache-references # 48.895 M/sec ( +- 0.340% ) (scaled from 23.78%) 50823973 cache-misses # 0.797 M/sec ( +- 1.400% ) (scaled from 23.76%)
16.470164901 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.079% )
encoded 600 frames, 36.58 fps, 13003.54 kb/s
Performance counter stats for './x264.sh 8' (3 runs):
133692266953 L1-icache-loads ( +- 0.027% ) 997371592 L1-icache-load-misses ( +- 0.009% )
16.407060367 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.036% )
| |