Messages in this thread | | | From | Jason Garrett-Glaser <> | Date | Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:42:24 -0800 | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS |
| |
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 what the conditions of this are--is it because ultrafast is just so much faster than all the other modes and so switches threads/loads faster? Is it because ultrafast has relatively equal workload among the threads, unlike the other loads? We'll probably know soon.
Jason
| |