linux-kernel - Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46532E8A.4030900@tmr.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2007 13:55:22 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@...ianpt.org>
CC:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
	Linux Kernel M/L <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48

Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
>> On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@...ianpt.org> wrote:
>>> As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
>>> same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
>>> myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
>>> the usage of kernel xpto feels like.
>>>
>>> I did run glxgears with kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13 and 2.6.21-ck2
>>> inside Debian's GNOME environment. The hardware is an AMD Sempron64 3.0
>>> GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvidia 6800XT.
>>> Average and standard deviation from the gathered data:
>>>
>>> * 2.6.21:               average = 11251.1; stdev = 0.172
>>> * 2.6.21-cfs-v13:       average = 11242.8; stdev = 0.033
>>> * 2.6.21-ck2:           average = 11257.8; stdev = 0.067
>>>
>>> Keep in mind those numbers don't mean anything we all know glxgears is
>>> not a benchmark, their purpose is only to be used as comparison under
>>> the same conditions.
>>
>> Uhm, then why are you trying to use them to compare against Bill's
>> numbers? You two have completely different hardware setups, and this
>> is a test that is dependent upon hardware. Stated differently, this is
>> a worthless comparison between your results and his as you are
>> changing multiple variables at the same time. (At minimum: the
>> scheduler, cpu, and video card.)
> 
> The only thing i want to see it's the difference between the behaviour 
> of the different schedulers on the same test setup. In my test -ck2 was 
> a bit better, not 200% worse as in Bill's measurements. I don't compare 
> absolute values on different test setups.
> 
Since I didn't test ck2 I'm sure your numbers are unique, I only tested 
the sd-0.48 patch set. I have the ck2 patch, just haven't tried it 
yet... But since there are a lot of other things in it, I'm unsure how 
it relates to what I was testing.
>>
>>> One odd thing i noticed, with 2.6.21-cfs-v13 the gnome's time applet in
>>> the bar skipped some minutes (e.g. 16:23 -> 16:25) several times.
>>>
>>> The data is available on:
>>> http://www.debianPT.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070520/
>>>
>>>
>>> How did you get your data? I am affraid your data it's wrong, there's no
>>>   such big difference between the schedulers...
>>
>> It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts
>> several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one?
> 
> No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the GNOME's 
> environment.
> 
If you test the same conditions as I did let me know your results.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/