Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

[Jason Garrett-Glaser]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 06:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> > Having said that, we generally try to make things perform well without apps
>> > having to switch themselves to SCHED_BATCH. Mike, do you think we can make
>> > x264 perform as well (or nearly as well) under SCHED_OTHER as under
>> > SCHED_BATCH?
>>
>> It's not bad as is, except for ultrafast mode.  START_DEBIT is the
>> biggest problem there.  I don't think SCHED_OTHER will ever match
>> SCHED_BATCH for this load, though I must say I haven't full-spectrum
>> tested.  This load really wants RR scheduling, and wakeup preemption
>> necessarily perturbs run order.
>>
>> I'll probably piddle with it some more, it's an interesting load.
> Yes, i must say, very interresting, its very complicated and... oh wait,
> its just encoding a movie!

Your trolling is becoming a bit over-the-top at this point.  You
should also considering replying to multiple people in one email as
opposed to spamming a whole bunch in sequence.

Perhaps as the lead x264 developer I'm qualified to say that it
certainly is a very complicated load due to the strict ordering
requirements of the threading model--and that you should tone down the
whining just a tad and perhaps read a bit more about how BFS and CFS
work before complaining about them.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/