Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753065AbZLRK4R (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752812AbZLRK4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:16 -0500 Received: from fom01.emnet.dk ([89.249.14.84]:47195 "EHLO fom01.emnet.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752770AbZLRK4P (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:15 -0500 X-AuditID: 59f90e54-b7bd7ae000001243-df-4b2b5fcd74e3 Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS From: Kasper Sandberg To: tfjellstrom@shaw.ca Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200912171422.54836.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <20091217105316.GB26010@elte.hu> <1261047618.14314.6.camel@localhost> <200912171422.54836.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:56:09 +0100 Message-Id: <1261133769.14314.35.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARIa7Dg= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2222 Lines: 60 On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:22 -0700, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > On Thu December 17 2009, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * 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 > > > > Thats kinda besides the point. > > > > all these tunables and weirdness is _NEVER_ going to work for people. > > > > now forgive me for being so blunt, but for a user, having to do > > echo x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app > > or > > echo some_benchmark > x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app > > > > just isnt usable, bfs matches, even exceeds cfs on all accounts, with > > ZERO user tuning, so while cfs may be able to nearly match up with a ton > > of application specific stuff, that just doesnt work for a normal user. > > > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity, > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast. > > > > > > Strange, I seem to recall that BFS needs you to run apps with some silly > schedtool program to get media apps to not skip while doing other tasks. (I > don't have to tweak CFS at all) You recall incorrectly > > > > 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/