-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I've had some (off list) requests to see if the interactivity patch I posted
shows any differences in contest. To be honest I wasn't sure it would, and
this is not quite what I expected. Below is a 2.5.73-mm1 patched with
patch-O1int-0306271816 (2.5.73-O1i) compared to 2.5.73-mm1 with contest
(http://contest.kolivas.org).
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 78 93.6 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.73-mm1 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 75 97.3 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.73-mm1 1 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.97
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 94 78.7 39.0 20.2 1.21
2.5.73-mm1 2 108 67.6 67.0 29.6 1.40
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 86 84.9 0.0 0.0 1.10
2.5.73-mm1 3 103 74.8 0.0 0.0 1.34
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 92 80.4 1.0 3.3 1.18
2.5.73-mm1 3 113 66.4 2.0 4.4 1.47
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 101 73.3 24.6 12.9 1.29
2.5.73-mm1 4 127 59.1 39.7 16.5 1.65
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 95 78.9 22.7 11.6 1.22
2.5.73-mm1 2 112 67.9 43.0 19.6 1.45
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 92 80.4 2.7 2.2 1.18
2.5.73-mm1 2 100 76.0 7.8 7.0 1.30
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 87 86.2 0.0 1.1 1.12
2.5.73-mm1 2 93 80.6 0.0 7.5 1.21
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 84 86.9 35.0 1.2 1.08
2.5.73-mm1 2 114 68.4 54.0 1.8 1.48
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-O1i 1 222 33.3 2.0 31.5 2.85
2.5.73-mm1 4 365 20.8 5.0 48.2 4.74
I promise I didn't tune it with contest results in mind. There are still
things I want to do to it that may not affect these results.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+/FekF6dfvkL3i1gRAhHUAJwOiLq+u3nEGn9Ym+c5x4JpTqrK1ACfX79F
WKLTsbtqwXyFpOZ+i+JvgVU=
=nQk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 16:41, Con Kolivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've had some (off list) requests to see if the interactivity patch I posted
> shows any differences in contest. To be honest I wasn't sure it would, and
> this is not quite what I expected. Below is a 2.5.73-mm1 patched with
> patch-O1int-0306271816 (2.5.73-O1i) compared to 2.5.73-mm1 with contest
> (http://contest.kolivas.org).
These are good news, indeed. The patch is getting better and better, but
I'm still seeing XMMS audio skips when clicking on a URL inside
Evolution (and using Konqueror as my web browser), and sometimes when
moving windows around.
Also, it seems that nicing the X server to -20 causes it to get CPU at
discontinuous bursts, causing window movement to be somewhat jerky. The
overall feeling for the X server is better at a default nice of 0. Isn't
this curious?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:28, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 16:41, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I've had some (off list) requests to see if the interactivity patch I
> > posted shows any differences in contest. To be honest I wasn't sure it
> > would, and this is not quite what I expected. Below is a 2.5.73-mm1
> > patched with patch-O1int-0306271816 (2.5.73-O1i) compared to 2.5.73-mm1
> > with contest (http://contest.kolivas.org).
>
> These are good news, indeed. The patch is getting better and better, but
> I'm still seeing XMMS audio skips when clicking on a URL inside
> Evolution (and using Konqueror as my web browser), and sometimes when
> moving windows around.
>
> Also, it seems that nicing the X server to -20 causes it to get CPU at
> discontinuous bursts, causing window movement to be somewhat jerky. The
> overall feeling for the X server is better at a default nice of 0. Isn't
> this curious?
Not curious at all. I should have made it clear I was in _no_ way recommending
renicing X. It should be left at nice 0 and the scheduler decide what is
interactive. Renicing X will guarantee you of getting audio skips.
There is still the problem of apps started during heavy loads. While the last
patch helps a little, I have to do some more work on the algorithm and make
it smarter to help a lot.
Con
Con Kolivas wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I've had some (off list) requests to see if the interactivity patch I posted
>shows any differences in contest. To be honest I wasn't sure it would, and
>this is not quite what I expected. Below is a 2.5.73-mm1 patched with
>patch-O1int-0306271816 (2.5.73-O1i) compared to 2.5.73-mm1 with contest
>(http://contest.kolivas.org).
>
>
Hi Con,
It looks like the patch is starving the background loads.
read_load for example can use up to 7% (maybe more) of the
CPU. It is brought down to 2.2%, list_load is worse.
Hi!
> These are good news, indeed. The patch is getting better and better, but
> I'm still seeing XMMS audio skips when clicking on a URL inside
> Evolution (and using Konqueror as my web browser), and sometimes when
> moving windows around.
>
Could you tell exactly how you make xmms skip? I can't make it skip
here, even with a make -j20. Not that I'm complaining, but I just want
to track this behaviour. The only time it skips is when my cd plays a
track scratched 8)
Roberto