| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2c0942db0705191355x740bf664ud36c3cc4b39d210f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 13:55:52 -0700 From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org> To: "Diego Calleja" <diegocg@...il.com> Cc: "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@....com>, "Linux Kernel M/L" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48 On 5/19/07, Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com> wrote: > El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> escribió: > > > The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for > > your viewing pleasure. The only "tuned" result was with sd, since what I > > observed was so bad using the default settings. If any scheduler > > developers would like me to try other tunings or new versions let me know. > > How useful is glxgears as benchmark here? The X.org people has been saying > for ages that "glxgears is not a benchmark". If you hold everything in the system constant other than the scheduler, then it's a useful measure of the effects the scheduler has upon glxgears, regardless of how well or poorly written it might be. I suspect the X.org people are correct in regards how most people would try to use it, which would be measurements against different video cards, CPUs, etc. - 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