Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> SD 0.46		1-2 FPS
>>> cfs v5 nice -19	219-233 FPS
>>> cfs v5 nice 0 	1000-1996
>>    cfs v5 nice -10  60-65 FPS
> 
> the problem is, the glxgears portion of this test is an _inverse_ 
> testcase.
> 
> The reason? glxgears on true 3D hardware will _not_ use X, it will 
> directly use the 3D driver of the kernel. So by renicing X to -19 you 
> give the xterms more chance to show stuff - the performance of the 
> glxgears will 'degrade' - but that is what you asked for: glxgears is 
> 'just another CPU hog' that competes with X, it's not a "true" X client.
> 
> if you are after glxgears performance in this test then you'll get the 
> best performance out of this by renicing X to +19 or even SCHED_BATCH.
> 
Several points on this...

First, I don't think this is accelerated in the way you mean, the 
machine is a test server, with motherboard video using the 945G video 
driver. Given the limitations of the support in that setup, I don't 
think it qualified as "true 3D hardware," although I guess I could try 
using the vesafb version as a test.

The 2nd thing I note is that on FC6 this scheduler seems to confuse 
'top' to some degree, since the glxgears is shown as taking 51% of the 
CPU (one core), while the state breakdown shows about 73% in idle, 
waitio, and int. image attached.

After I upgrade the kernel and cfs to the absolute latest I'll repeat 
this, as well as test with vesafb, and my planned run under heavy load.

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