[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1261121405.30469.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:30:05 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@...il.com>,
Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 06:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Having said that, we generally try to make things perform well without apps
> having to switch themselves to SCHED_BATCH. Mike, do you think we can make
> x264 perform as well (or nearly as well) under SCHED_OTHER as under
> SCHED_BATCH?
It's not bad as is, except for ultrafast mode. START_DEBIT is the
biggest problem there. I don't think SCHED_OTHER will ever match
SCHED_BATCH for this load, though I must say I haven't full-spectrum
tested. This load really wants RR scheduling, and wakeup preemption
necessarily perturbs run order.
I'll probably piddle with it some more, it's an interesting load.
-Mike
--
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