Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Kasper Sandberg <> | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:56:46 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 17:18 -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote: > >> > > well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs.. > >> > > > >> > > http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > regards, > >> > > Kasper Sandberg > >> > > >> > Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago. Seems that .32 has basically tied > >> > it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264, you basically > >> > can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious what's responsible for > >> > the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH enabled. > >> > > >> > The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately ties BFS > >> > when we enable SCHED_BATCH. We're doing some further testing to see exactly > > > > Thats kinda besides the point. > > > > all these tunables and weirdness is _NEVER_ going to work for people. > > Can't individually applications request SCHED_BATCH? Our plan was to > have x264 simply detect if it was necessary (once we figure out what > encoding settings result in the large gap situation) and automatically > enable it for the current application. that is an insane solution, especially considering better schedulers outperform cfs SCHED_BATCH without doing ANYTHING special.
Do you not see what is happening here? it is simply grotesk > > Jason
| |