Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760107AbZLQKxf (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:53:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964812AbZLQKxa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:53:30 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:45359 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752876AbZLQKx2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:53:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:53:16 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jason Garrett-Glaser , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Kasper Sandberg , LKML Mailinglist Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS Message-ID: <20091217105316.GB26010@elte.hu> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1549 Lines: 40 * Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs.. > > > > http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0 > > > > > > > > regards, > > Kasper Sandberg > > Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago. Seems that .32 has basically tied > it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264, you basically > can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious what's responsible for > the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH enabled. > > The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately ties BFS > when we enable SCHED_BATCH. We're doing some further testing to see exactly > what the conditions of this are--is it because ultrafast is just so much > faster than all the other modes and so switches threads/loads faster? Is it > because ultrafast has relatively equal workload among the threads, unlike > the other loads? We'll probably know soon. Thanks for testing it! Btw., you might want to make use of 'perf sched record', 'perf sched map', 'perf sched trace' etc. to get an insight into how a particular workload schedules and why those decisions are done. (You'll need CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y for best results.) Thanks, Ingo -- 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/