lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

    > With your version of latt.c, I get these results with 2.6-tip vs
    > 2.6.31-rc9-bfs:
    >
    >
    > (mainline)
    > Averages:
    > ------------------------------
    > Max 50 usec
    > Avg 12 usec
    > Stdev 3 usec
    >
    >
    > (BFS)
    > Averages:
    > ------------------------------
    > Max 474 usec
    > Avg 11 usec
    > Stdev 16 usec
    >
    >
    > However, the interactivity problems still remain. Does that mean it's
    > not a latency issue?

    Could be a fairness issue. If X+client needs more than it's fair share
    of CPU, there's nothing to do but use nice levels. I'm stuck with
    unaccelerated X (nvidia card), so if I want a good DVD watching or
    whatever eye-candy experience while my box does a lot of other work, I
    either have to use SCHED_IDLE/nice for the background stuff, or renice
    X. That's the down side of a fair scheduler.

    There is another variant of latency related interactivity issue for the
    desktop though, too LOW latency. If X and clients are switching too
    fast, redraw can look nasty, sliced/diced.

    -Mike



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-10 05:19    [W:3.436 / U:0.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site