Miguel Figueiredo wrote: > Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu: >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Kenneth Prugh <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> <large snip> >>>> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my >>>> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have >>>> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it >>>> and try. >>>> >>>> The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using to >>>> test the schedulers. I assume 2.6.23-rc1 for CFS, but what about SD? >>> .22-ck1 includes it, so that should be fine: >>> >>> http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/0318.html >>> >>> Ingo >> Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1 >> CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a map >> while not moving at all and always facing the same direction, while >> slowing increasing the number of loops. >> >> CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD >> broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively >> around the third loop. Seems like I will stick to CFS for gaming now. >> >> Below you will find the results of my test with the average number of FPS. >> >> CFS | SD >> UT2004 + 0 loops | 200 FPS UT2004 + 0 loops | 190 FPS >> UT2004 + 1 loops | 195 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 190 FPS >> UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS >> UT2004 + 3 loops | 189 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 136 FPS >> UT2004 + 4 loops | 150 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 137 FPS >> UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 136 FPS >> UT2004 + 6 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 105 FPS >> UT2004 + 7 loops | 118 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 104 FPS >> UT2004 + 8 loops | 97 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 104 FPS >> UT2004 + 9 loops | 94 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 89 FPS >> UT2004 + 10 loops | 92 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 91 FPS > > can you apply the patch [1] that changes the behaviour of sched_yield on SD > and report the results? > > SD should scale a lot better after the patch. > > 1 - http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-July/008297.html > I Applied the patch. SD Seemed a bit smoother over the loads, although that could be a placebo effect. It wasn't until the 8 or 9th loop running that I could really notice that the fps were fluctuating in the map without looking at the fps counter. SD-Patched UT2004 + 0 loops | 202 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 201 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 199 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 143 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 112 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 110 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 108 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 90 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 89 FPS -- Kenneth Prugh - Ken69267 Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Kenneth Prugh <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Miguel Figueiredo <[email protected]>
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- Prev by Date: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes
- Next by Date: Re: [1/3] 2.6.23-rc1: known regressions with patches v3
- Previous by thread: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- Next by thread: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- Index(es):
 |