lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-17 11:45    [W:0.071 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site