Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:00:47 +0300
From:      Niki Denev <nike_d@cytexbg.com>
To:        Ivan Voras <ivoras@geri.cc.fer.hr>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: On schedulers
Message-ID:  <46B7298F.2030804@cytexbg.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070805204321.H43187@geri.cc.fer.hr>
References:  <f8o49l$sd1$1@sea.gmane.org> <46B1C69D.6070503@cytexbg.com>	<20070802181239.O561@10.0.0.1> <20070803034628.U561@10.0.0.1> <20070805204321.H43187@geri.cc.fer.hr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Niki Denev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both idle and glxgears are run as normal user.
>>>
>>> Can you tell me what % cpu is going to each process during this 
>>> time? These results are surprising.  For workloads like this ULE 
>>> should essentially implement a 'fair' scheduling policy.  However, 
>>> so should 4BSD.  So I'm not yet sure why the slowdown wouldn't be 
>>> relative to the number of running threads.  Also, 'vmstat 1' output 
>>> would be useful.
>
> I'm glad this discussion is happening, but:
>
> - I wasn't really interested in 3D performance, but mostly in if 
> there's theoretical modelling of how ULE should perform, and/or its 
> comparison to Linux (e.g. elaboration of what 'fair' means for ULE).
> - People who know (meaning those who work with or develop X11) say 
> that glxgears is awful for testing graphical performance. I don't know 
> exactly why is that, but I've seen widely varying results from 
> glxgears on related mailing lists that seem to confirm this. From 
> personal experience I've seen glxgears "topping out" with much idle 
> CPU left, both extremely high and extremely low results from it on 
> hardware that shouldn't behave like that, so I agree with this. Quake 
> should be much better for benchmarking :)
>
>

Sorry for my late reply, i was out of town for the weekend.

It seems that glxgears really does not give meaningfull results, because 
after reruning the same tests several times i got very different results.
I will try to run the same test again, but with quake this week if time 
permits. I'm thinking about testing it with and without 3d acceleration.


Best Regards,
Niki



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46B7298F.2030804>