On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
> I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when people
> were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
> the reports of huge improvements with his 2.4 kernel patches.
Well thats a reason if there ever were one...
> ...
> The second: too many patches. I only would have tried one or two, but the
> ck-patchset is a lot bigger.. and I am a little bit uneasy about that.
so use only the scheduler? nobody forces you to do many things..
>
> But I tried a lot of Ingo's cfs patches - and it was a very pleasant
> experience. Ingo reacted very fast on my feedback and when I hit a problem he
> really tried to find the cause and solve it - and it always was one patch, so
> I felt a lot less scared ;)
>
> My usual workload is very 'usual'. KDE desktop, kmail, konqueror, sometimes
> xine or amarok providing some background noise while typing away in kate,
> triplea, wesnoth or some other game when I need to 'rest' for a while. A lot
> of compiling in the background, because I am one of these gentoo users.
>
> With cfs the experience was much more pleasant than with the 'old' scheduler.
> Compiling did not hurt as much as usual anymore - the only thing that hurts
> is swap....
>
> But there is another thing I do regularly: I play ut2004. Not every single
> day, but sometimes several times a day. 20minutes of mayhem and then back to
> the desktop.
>
> And I do not see any problems with cfs and ut2004. The maximum FPS are indeed
> a little bit lower (and you can argue that this really is not important if
> the pre-game FPS in a level looking down on the floor go down from 390 to
> 380FPS), but the minimum FPS went up!
well, surely CFS is better than the old vanilla scheduler, also with 3d,
and if you have that high fps, i doubt you will notice the effects me
and others are having. it is not that it is bad, its just not as good as
SD has shown to be possible..
>
> In scenes when my system is fighting hard to provide the FPS, when the action
> is high (like when fighting with half a douzend bots at a power node, while
> some other bots are shooting into the mess) CFS is much better than the old
> scheduler. It is a big difference if you get 6-10FPS or 15-25.
> (I am playing with maximum 'beautifullness' - I would be able to get a lot
> more FPS, if I wanted, but I want a nice scenery and maximum visual
> effects ...)
>
> From my point of view 3D is a lot better with cfs.
Better than old vanilla yes, but than SD? well, you should give it a
try.
>
> Now the question for all the people who are bashing cfs for its bad 3d
> performance: what am I doing wrong?
As said, we never said CFS was worse than old vanilla, and we never said
it was BAD, we did however say its not as good as SD :)
>
> Glück Auf,
> Volker
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
