Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753113AbZLRK44 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752821AbZLRK4x (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:53 -0500 Received: from fom01.emnet.dk ([89.249.14.84]:47396 "EHLO fom01.emnet.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752817AbZLRK4w (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:52 -0500 X-AuditID: 59f90e54-b7bd7ae000001243-e3-4b2b5ff2a26a Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS From: Kasper Sandberg To: Jason Garrett-Glaser Cc: Ingo Molnar , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , LKML Mailinglist , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <28f2fcbc0912171718x271520b4k5da3376b5182d88a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> <20091217105316.GB26010@elte.hu> <1261047618.14314.6.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912171718x271520b4k5da3376b5182d88a@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:56:46 +0100 Message-Id: <1261133806.14314.37.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: 1843 Lines: 43 On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 17:18 -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:00 AM, 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. > > Can't individually applications request SCHED_BATCH? Our plan was to > have x264 simply detect if it was necessary (once we figure out what > encoding settings result in the large gap situation) and automatically > enable it for the current application. that is an insane solution, especially considering better schedulers outperform cfs SCHED_BATCH without doing ANYTHING special. Do you not see what is happening here? it is simply grotesk > > Jason -- 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/