Messages in this thread | | | From | Jason Garrett-Glaser <> | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:05:34 -0800 | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS |
| |
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 06:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> > Having said that, we generally try to make things perform well without apps >> > having to switch themselves to SCHED_BATCH. Mike, do you think we can make >> > x264 perform as well (or nearly as well) under SCHED_OTHER as under >> > SCHED_BATCH? >> >> It's not bad as is, except for ultrafast mode. START_DEBIT is the >> biggest problem there. I don't think SCHED_OTHER will ever match >> SCHED_BATCH for this load, though I must say I haven't full-spectrum >> tested. This load really wants RR scheduling, and wakeup preemption >> necessarily perturbs run order. >> >> I'll probably piddle with it some more, it's an interesting load. > Yes, i must say, very interresting, its very complicated and... oh wait, > its just encoding a movie!
Your trolling is becoming a bit over-the-top at this point. You should also considering replying to multiple people in one email as opposed to spamming a whole bunch in sequence.
Perhaps as the lead x264 developer I'm qualified to say that it certainly is a very complicated load due to the strict ordering requirements of the threading model--and that you should tone down the whining just a tad and perhaps read a bit more about how BFS and CFS work before complaining about them.
Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |