On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
My experience was quite similar. I noticed after launching the second
loop that the FPS stuck down to 15 for about 20 seconds, then climbed
back up to 48. After that it went rapidly downhill. This is similar
to other benchmarks I've done of SD versus CFS in the past. At a
"normal" load they're fairly similar but SD breaks down under
pressure.
The only other thing of interest is that the -ck kernel had the WM
menus appear in about 3 seconds rather than 5-8 under the other two.
Game: Nexuiz 2.3
OpenGL 2.0 shaders on
Vertex Buffer Objects on
Show FPS on
ultimate quality
1024x768
2.6.23-git
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 48
4 40
5 38
6 33
7 28
8 22
9 22
10 18
2.6.22.1-ck
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 12
4 6
5 6
6 5
7 4
8 3
9 3
10 2
2.6.22.1-cfs-v19.1+ckbits [*]
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 46
4 45
5 43
6 36
7 32
8 25
9 24
10 24
[*] This kernel has the cfq-* and mm-* patches from -ck applied, and
the above-background-load function from pre-SD ck patchsets (or
2.6.23-git)
--
Matt
-
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]
