linux-kernel - Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

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: <200707302234.21860.elmig@debianpt.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:34:21 +0100
From:	Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@...ianpt.org>
To:	ck@....kolivas.org
Cc:	Kenneth Prugh <ken69267@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <ken69267@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> <large snip>
> >>
> >> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
> >> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
> >> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it
> >> and try.
> >>
> >> The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using to
> >> test the schedulers. I assume 2.6.23-rc1 for CFS, but what about SD?
> >
> > .22-ck1 includes it, so that should be fine:
> >
> >  http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/0318.html
> >
> > 	Ingo
>
> Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1
> CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a map
> while not moving at all and always facing the same direction, while
> slowing increasing the number of loops.
>
> 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.
>
> Below you will find the results of my test with the average number of FPS.
>
> 		CFS		|		SD
> UT2004 + 0 loops | 200 FPS		UT2004 + 0 loops | 190 FPS
> UT2004 + 1 loops | 195 FPS		UT2004 + 1 loops | 190 FPS
> UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS		UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS
> UT2004 + 3 loops | 189 FPS		UT2004 + 3 loops | 136 FPS
> UT2004 + 4 loops | 150 FPS		UT2004 + 4 loops | 137 FPS
> UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS		UT2004 + 5 loops | 136 FPS
> UT2004 + 6 loops | 145 FPS		UT2004 + 6 loops | 105 FPS
> UT2004 + 7 loops | 118 FPS		UT2004 + 7 loops | 104 FPS
> UT2004 + 8 loops | 97 FPS		UT2004 + 8 loops | 104 FPS
> UT2004 + 9 loops | 94 FPS		UT2004 + 9 loops | 89 FPS
> UT2004 + 10 loops | 92 FPS		UT2004 + 10 loops | 91 FPS

can you apply the patch [1] that changes the behaviour of sched_yield on SD 
and report the results?

SD should scale a lot better after the patch.

1 - http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-July/008297.html

-- 

Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards,

Miguel Figueiredo
http://www.DebianPT.org
-
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/