Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Kasper Sandberg <> | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:56:09 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:22 -0700, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > On Thu December 17 2009, 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. > > > > 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 > > > > 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. > > > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity, > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast. > > > > <snip> > > Strange, I seem to recall that BFS needs you to run apps with some silly > schedtool program to get media apps to not skip while doing other tasks. (I > don't have to tweak CFS at all) You recall incorrectly > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ingo > > >
| |