Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759864AbXETQ7E (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 12:59:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757987AbXETQ6y (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 12:58:54 -0400 Received: from cb2.northrockquote.com ([64.251.14.146]:2095 "EHLO dejavu.debianpt.org" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756509AbXETQ6x (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 12:58:53 -0400 Message-ID: <46507E1D.6030002@debianpt.org> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 17:58:05 +0100 From: Miguel Figueiredo Organization: DebianPT.org User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Lee CC: Bill Davidsen , Linux Kernel M/L Subject: Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48 References: <464F57DD.2000309@tmr.com> <4650774F.9040208@debianpt.org> <2c0942db0705200944r19a37bd8pd7c220903084e4d3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0705200944r19a37bd8pd7c220903084e4d3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2520 Lines: 61 Ray Lee wrote: > On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo wrote: >> As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the >> same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested >> myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about >> the usage of kernel xpto feels like. >> >> I did run glxgears with kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13 and 2.6.21-ck2 >> inside Debian's GNOME environment. The hardware is an AMD Sempron64 3.0 >> GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvidia 6800XT. >> Average and standard deviation from the gathered data: >> >> * 2.6.21: average = 11251.1; stdev = 0.172 >> * 2.6.21-cfs-v13: average = 11242.8; stdev = 0.033 >> * 2.6.21-ck2: average = 11257.8; stdev = 0.067 >> >> Keep in mind those numbers don't mean anything we all know glxgears is >> not a benchmark, their purpose is only to be used as comparison under >> the same conditions. > > Uhm, then why are you trying to use them to compare against Bill's > numbers? You two have completely different hardware setups, and this > is a test that is dependent upon hardware. Stated differently, this is > a worthless comparison between your results and his as you are > changing multiple variables at the same time. (At minimum: the > scheduler, cpu, and video card.) The only thing i want to see it's the difference between the behaviour of the different schedulers on the same test setup. In my test -ck2 was a bit better, not 200% worse as in Bill's measurements. I don't compare absolute values on different test setups. > >> One odd thing i noticed, with 2.6.21-cfs-v13 the gnome's time applet in >> the bar skipped some minutes (e.g. 16:23 -> 16:25) several times. >> >> The data is available on: >> http://www.debianPT.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070520/ >> >> >> How did you get your data? I am affraid your data it's wrong, there's no >> such big difference between the schedulers... > > It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts > several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one? No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the GNOME's environment. -- Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards, Miguel Figueiredo http://www.DebianPT.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/