[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <462DA1E8.9080201@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:21:28 +1000
From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@....jussieu.fr>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Within reason, it's not the number of clients that X has that causes its
>> CPU bandwidth use to sky rocket and cause problems. It's more to to
>> with what type of clients they are. Most GUIs (even ones that are
>> constantly updating visual data (e.g. gkrellm -- I can open quite a
>> large number of these without increasing X's CPU usage very much)) cause
>> very little load on the X server. The exceptions to this are the
>
>
> there is actually 2 and not just 1 "X server", and they are VERY VERY
> different in behavior.
>
> Case 1: Accelerated driver
>
> If X talks to a decent enough card it supports will with acceleration,
> it will be very rare for X itself to spend any kind of significant
> amount of CPU time, all the really heavy stuff is done in hardware, and
> asynchronously at that. A bit of batching will greatly improve system
> performance in this case.
>
> Case 2: Unaccelerated VESA
>
> Some drivers in X, especially the VESA and NV drivers (which are quite
> common, vesa is used on all hardware without a special driver nowadays),
> have no or not enough acceleration to matter for modern desktops. This
> means the CPU is doing all the heavy lifting, in the X program. In this
> case even a simple "move the window a bit" becomes quite a bit of a CPU
> hog already.
Mine's a:
SiS 661/741/760 PCI/AGP or 662/761Gx PCIE VGA Display adapter according
to X's display settings tool. Which category does that fall into?
It's not a special adapter and is just the one that came with the
motherboard. It doesn't use much CPU unless I grab a window and wiggle
it all over the screen or do something like "ls -lR /" in an xterm.
>
> The cases are fundamentally different in behavior, because in the first
> case, X hardly consumes the time it would get in any scheme, while in
> the second case X really is CPU bound and will happily consume any CPU
> time it can get.
Which still doesn't justify an elaborate "points" sharing scheme.
Whichever way you look at that that's just another way of giving X more
CPU bandwidth and there are simpler ways to give X more CPU if it needs
it. However, I think there's something seriously wrong if it needs the
-19 nice that I've heard mentioned. You might as well just run it as a
real time process.
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@...pond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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