From: Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com>
To: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:42:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs..
>
> http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0
>
>
>
> regards,
> Kasper Sandberg
Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago. Seems that .32 has basically
tied it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264,
you basically can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious
what's responsible for the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH
enabled.
The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately
ties BFS when we enable SCHED_BATCH. We're doing some further testing
to see exactly what the conditions of this are--is it because
ultrafast is just so much faster than all the other modes and so
switches threads/loads faster? Is it because ultrafast has relatively
equal workload among the threads, unlike the other loads? We'll
probably know soon.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-17 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-17 9:33 Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-17 10:42 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser [this message]
2009-12-17 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-17 11:00 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-17 12:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-17 12:35 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-17 15:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-12-17 13:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-18 10:54 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-18 11:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-17 21:22 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-12-18 10:56 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-18 1:18 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser
2009-12-18 5:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-18 7:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-18 10:11 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser
2009-12-18 12:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-18 13:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-18 13:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-18 13:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-18 10:57 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-18 11:05 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser
2009-12-19 1:08 ` Con Kolivas
2009-12-19 4:03 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-19 17:36 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-19 20:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-20 3:22 ` Andres Freund
2009-12-20 12:10 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-20 13:09 ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-12-20 15:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-20 15:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-22 7:33 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser
2009-12-22 7:39 ` Jason Garrett-Glaser
2009-12-18 10:56 ` Kasper Sandberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com \
--to=darkshikari@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@metanurb.dk \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®