[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070420050510.GA31637@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:05:10 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Jan Knutar <jk-lkml@....fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 02:52:38AM +0300, Jan Knutar wrote:
> On Thursday 19 April 2007 18:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> > > You can certainly script it with -geometry. But it is the wrong
> > > application for this matter, because you benchmark X more than
> > > glxgears itself. What would be better is something like a line
> > > rotating 360 degrees and doing some short stuff between each
> > > degree, so that X is not much sollicitated, but the CPU would be
> > > spent more on the processes themselves.
> >
> > at least on my setup glxgears goes via DRI/DRM so there's no X
> > scheduling inbetween at all, and the visual appearance of glxgears is
> > a direct function of its scheduling.
>
> How much of the subjective interactiveness-feel of the desktop is at the
> mercy of the X server's scheduling and not the cpu scheduler?
probably a lot. Hence the reason why I wanted something visually noticeable
but using far less X resources than glxgears. The modified orbitclock is
perfect IMHO.
Regards,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists