lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:00 +0100, Kasper Sandberg 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.
    >
    > Fact is, it is working for a great number of people, the vast majority
    > of whom don't even know where the knobs are, much less what they do.
    but not as great as it could be :)

    >
    > > now forgive me for being so blunt, but for a user, having to do
    > > echo x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app
    > > or
    > > echo some_benchmark > x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app
    >
    > Theatrics noted.
    >
    > > just isnt usable, bfs matches, even exceeds cfs on all accounts, with
    > > ZERO user tuning, so while cfs may be able to nearly match up with a ton
    > > of application specific stuff, that just doesnt work for a normal user.
    >
    > Seems you haven't done much benchmarking. BFS has strengths as well as
    > weaknesses, all schedulers do.
    yeah, BFS just has more strengths and fewer weaknesses than CFS :)
    >
    > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity,
    > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast.
    >
    > Not true. I sent Con hard evidence of a severe problem area wrt
    > interactivity, and hard numbers showing other places where BFS needs
    > some work. But hey, if BFS blows your skirt up, use it and be happy.
    Theatrics noted.

    As for your point, well.. as far as i have heard, all you've come up
    with is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS use cases which nobody is ever EVAR going
    to do, and thus irellevant
    >
    > -Mike
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-18 11:57    [W:0.042 / U:149.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site