Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48

[Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org>]

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
> > Ray Lee wrote:
> > > On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org> wrote:
> > > > As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on 
> > > > the
> > > > same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
> > > > myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
> > > > the usage of kernel xpto feels like.
> > > >
> > > > I did run glxgears with kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13 and 2.6.21-ck2
> > > > inside Debian's GNOME environment. The hardware is an AMD Sempron64 3.0
> > > > GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvidia 6800XT.
> > > > Average and standard deviation from the gathered data:
> > > >
> > > > * 2.6.21:               average = 11251.1; stdev = 0.172
> > > > * 2.6.21-cfs-v13:       average = 11242.8; stdev = 0.033
> > > > * 2.6.21-ck2:           average = 11257.8; stdev = 0.067
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind those numbers don't mean anything we all know glxgears is
> > > > not a benchmark, their purpose is only to be used as comparison under
> > > > the same conditions.
> > >
> > > Uhm, then why are you trying to use them to compare against Bill's
> > > numbers? You two have completely different hardware setups, and this
> > > is a test that is dependent upon hardware. Stated differently, this is
> > > a worthless comparison between your results and his as you are
> > > changing multiple variables at the same time. (At minimum: the
> > > scheduler, cpu, and video card.)
> >
> > The only thing i want to see it's the difference between the behaviour 
> > of the different schedulers on the same test setup. In my test -ck2 
> > was a bit better, not 200% worse as in Bill's measurements. I don't 
> > compare absolute values on different test setups.
> Since I didn't test ck2 I'm sure your numbers are unique, I only tested 
> the sd-0.48 patch set. I have the ck2 patch, just haven't tried it 
> yet... But since there are a lot of other things in it, I'm unsure how 
> it relates to what I was testing.
> > > > One odd thing i noticed, with 2.6.21-cfs-v13 the gnome's time applet in
> > > > the bar skipped some minutes (e.g. 16:23 -> 16:25) several times.
> > > >
> > > > The data is available on:
> > > > http://www.debianPT.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070520/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How did you get your data? I am affraid your data it's wrong, 
> > > > there's no
> > > >   such big difference between the schedulers...
> > >
> > > It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts
> > > several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one?
> >
> > No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the 
> > GNOME's environment.
> If you test the same conditions as I did let me know your results.

Hi Bill,

if i've understood correctly the script runs glxgears for 43 seconds and 
in that time generates random numbers in a random number of times 
(processes, fork and forget), is that it?

You find the data, for 2.6.21-{cfs-v13, ck2} in 
http://www.debianpt.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070522/

Here's the funny part...

Lets call:

a) to "random number of processes run while glxgears is running", 
gl_fairloops file

b) to "generated frames while running a burst of processes" aka "massive 
and uknown amount of operations in one process", gl_gears file

kernel	2.6.21-cfs-v13	2.6.21-ck2
a)	194464		254669		
b)	54159		124


--

Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards,

Miguel Figueiredo
http://www.DebianPT.org
-
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/