Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:13:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:13:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.kolej.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.25.225]:44809 "EHLO smtp.kolej.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:12:55 -0500 X-Envelope-From: martin.macok@underground.cz Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:12:52 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Martin_Ma=E8ok?= To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: low latency versus sched O(1) Message-ID: <20020111131252.A1366@sarah.kolej.mff.cuni.cz> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i X-Echelon: GRU NSA GCHQ CIA Pentagon nuclear conspiration war teror anthrax Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have tested Andrew Morton's low latency patch versus Ingo's sched O(1) patch a bit: "O1" is 2.4.18-pre2 + sched-O1-2.4.17-G1 "LL" is 2.4.18-pre3 + 2.4.17-low-latency + riel's 2.4.3ac4-largenice (Red Hat 7.2 Linux, UP Athlon CPU 850MHz) Comparison: Tuxracer: - reports same framerate on both when no other load is on the machine and the game is smooth in both cases. Tuxracer + kernel compilation (both nice 0): LL: the game skips a lot, ugly :( O1: the game skips much less than LL, playable Tuxracer + kernel compilation with nice +19: LL: no skipping, almost same as without kernel compilation O1: skips a little less then with kernel compilation (nice 0) but skips much more than LL in this case. Xmms/Jess visual plugin: - same framerate when no load (LL: maybe a little bit larger (+10%) framerate than O1) Xmms/Jess + kernel compilation: LL: almost doesn't work, very bad :( O1: lower framerate (1/3), skips a little, but works Xmms/Jess + kernel (nice +19): LL: almost exactly same as LL without kernel compilation! O1: framerate somewhere between.. skips ocassionaly Conclusion: This is not a real test nor real benchmark, only a little stupid luser test, but it can show that LL is much better in interactivity and smoothness but you HAVE to setup priorities (nice levels) of tasks by hand (explicitely). When you don't setup priorities explicitely than sched O1 makes the job for you but don't achieve same interactivity/smoothness performance as LL. So I suggest a combination of some conservative LL + O(1) scheduler will make linux desktop kicking ass! :) -- Martin Ma?ok http://underground.cz/ martin.macok@underground.cz http://Xtrmntr.org/ORBman/ - 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/