Re: [REPORT] First "glitch1" results, 2.6.21-rc7-git6-CFSv5 + SD0.46
From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 18:02:58 EST
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ed Tomlinson <edt@xxxxxx> wrote:
SD 0.46 1-2 FPS
cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS
cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996
cfs v5 nice -10 60-65 FPS
the problem is, the glxgears portion of this test is an _inverse_
testcase.
The reason? glxgears on true 3D hardware will _not_ use X, it will
directly use the 3D driver of the kernel. So by renicing X to -19 you
give the xterms more chance to show stuff - the performance of the
glxgears will 'degrade' - but that is what you asked for: glxgears is
'just another CPU hog' that competes with X, it's not a "true" X client.
if you are after glxgears performance in this test then you'll get the
best performance out of this by renicing X to +19 or even SCHED_BATCH.
Several points on this...
First, I don't think this is accelerated in the way you mean, the
machine is a test server, with motherboard video using the 945G video
driver. Given the limitations of the support in that setup, I don't
think it qualified as "true 3D hardware," although I guess I could try
using the vesafb version as a test.
The 2nd thing I note is that on FC6 this scheduler seems to confuse
'top' to some degree, since the glxgears is shown as taking 51% of the
CPU (one core), while the state breakdown shows about 73% in idle,
waitio, and int. image attached.
After I upgrade the kernel and cfs to the absolute latest I'll repeat
this, as well as test with vesafb, and my planned run under heavy load.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
