Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:41:36 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 11:54 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:00 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> 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. > > > > Fact is, it is working for a great number of people, the vast majority > > of whom don't even know where the knobs are, much less what they do. > but not as great as it could be :) > > > > > > 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 > > > > Theatrics noted. > > > > > 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. > > > > Seems you haven't done much benchmarking. BFS has strengths as well as > > weaknesses, all schedulers do. > yeah, BFS just has more strengths and fewer weaknesses than CFS :) > > > > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity, > > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast. > > > > Not true. I sent Con hard evidence of a severe problem area wrt > > interactivity, and hard numbers showing other places where BFS needs > > some work. But hey, if BFS blows your skirt up, use it and be happy. > Theatrics noted. > > As for your point, well.. as far as i have heard, all you've come up > with is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS use cases which nobody is ever EVAR going > to do, and thus irellevant
Goodbye troll.
*PLONK*
| |