[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070731094526.GA16300@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:45:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Kenneth Prugh <ken69267@...il.com>
Cc: John <darknessenvelops@...il.com>, ck@....kolivas.org,
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)
* Kenneth Prugh <ken69267@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks Kenneth for the testing! I've created a graph out of your
numbers:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/cfs-sd-ut2004-perf.jpg
(it also includes the SD numbers you got with the turn-yield-into-NOP
hack applied.)
Ingo
-
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