On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:07:30PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>...
> I took the time to track down what caused a breakage - in an "illegal
> binary driver" (not against the law here, though defamation certainly
> is...) no less. And contacted the vendor (separately). Other people
> on desktop machines with an ATI card using the fglrx driver may have
> been interested to know that they can't do the benchmarking some
> people here on lkml and -mm are asking for with a current 2.6.23 git
> kernel, hence my post.
>...
But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
> Matt
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
> performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
In this case we don't care about the performance of the video driver.
This isn't a race to see who can get the most fps. The driver can be
thought of as a black box so long as comparative benchmarks are done
with the same driver.
What we're looking for primarily is progress or regress in
interactivity under load with different cpu schedulers, and secondly
the effect of swap prefetch. The video driver is irrelevant -
especially considering the people doing this testing have a wide
variety of video cards. This is why I have included some commentary
on "feel" because that's the important part.
Ingo specifically asked for CFS v20 in 2.6.23 to be included in the
testing (its not available separately on his website), hence the need
to be able to bring up one's usual working environment under that
kernel also so the results aren't skewed by driver artifacts.
For my next trick, I'll attempt to quantify the "feel" bits using
scheduler statistics.
While riding a unicycle.
Okay, scratch the unicycle ;-)
--
Matt
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:19:36PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
> > performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
>
> In this case we don't care about the performance of the video driver.
> This isn't a race to see who can get the most fps. The driver can be
> thought of as a black box so long as comparative benchmarks are done
> with the same driver.
>...
What if your "black box" e.g. uses the BKL?
> Matt
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed