Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance() | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:54:49 -0500 |
| |
On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 08:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> (And puts a dent in x264 ultrafast) > > +SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE > encoded 600 frames, 425.04 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 416.07 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 417.49 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 420.65 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 425.55 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 425.58 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 426.18 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 424.21 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 422.20 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 423.15 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > > -SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE > encoded 600 frames, 378.52 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 378.75 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 378.20 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 372.54 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 366.69 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 378.46 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 379.89 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 382.25 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 384.10 fps, 22132.71 kb/s > encoded 600 frames, 375.24 fps, 22132.71 kb/s
What about my last patch? The one that avoids idle_balance() if the previous task was in a task_uninterruptible state. That one gave the same performance increase that removing idle_balance() did on my box.
-- Steve
| |