Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753226AbZLRNhL (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751713AbZLRNhI (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:08 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:60920 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751421AbZLRNhF (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:05 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/adCh+QFXacMWmVw9oKrFB/KYrKlegKR6MyHBe5d Nwp70tTktI0u53 Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS From: Mike Galbraith To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jason Garrett-Glaser , Kasper Sandberg , Peter Zijlstra , LKML Mailinglist , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <20091218130642.GA17033@elte.hu> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> <20091217105316.GB26010@elte.hu> <1261047618.14314.6.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912171718x271520b4k5da3376b5182d88a@mail.gmail.com> <20091218052344.GD417@elte.hu> <1261121405.30469.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <28f2fcbc0912180211we599252v39cb94d113537eb5@mail.gmail.com> <1261140546.15591.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091218130642.GA17033@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:36:53 +0100 Message-Id: <1261143413.15591.15.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.58 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2347 Lines: 52 On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 14:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > I'm personally curious as to what kind of scheduler issues this results > > > in--I haven't done any BFS vs CFS tests with this option enabled yet. > > > > I'll look for x264 source, and patch/piddle. > > btw., would be nice to look at it via tools/perf/ as well: > > perf stat --repeat 3 ... > > to see the basic hardware utilization (cycles/cache-misses, branch execution > rate, instructions, etc.) and the basic parallelism metrics, at a glance. > > i suspect "perf stat -e L1-icache-loads -e L1-icache-load-misses" would give > us an even more detailed picture. Almost virgin v2.6.32-10468-g020307d running 'medium'. encoded 600 frames, 36.52 fps, 13003.54 kb/s Performance counter stats for './x264.sh 8' (3 runs): 63742.218844 task-clock-msecs # 3.870 CPUs ( +- 0.016% ) 42593 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.487% ) 3011 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.417% ) 12862 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.004% ) 151734450892 cycles # 2380.439 M/sec ( +- 1.947% ) (scaled from 71.44%) 205642315207 instructions # 1.355 IPC ( +- 0.085% ) (scaled from 80.68%) 16274905932 branches # 255.324 M/sec ( +- 0.080% ) (scaled from 80.67%) 1257135617 branch-misses # 7.724 % ( +- 0.255% ) (scaled from 80.06%) 3116653323 cache-references # 48.895 M/sec ( +- 0.340% ) (scaled from 23.78%) 50823973 cache-misses # 0.797 M/sec ( +- 1.400% ) (scaled from 23.76%) 16.470164901 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.079% ) encoded 600 frames, 36.58 fps, 13003.54 kb/s Performance counter stats for './x264.sh 8' (3 runs): 133692266953 L1-icache-loads ( +- 0.027% ) 997371592 L1-icache-load-misses ( +- 0.009% ) 16.407060367 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.036% ) -- 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/