[REPORT] 2.6.21 vs. 2.6.21-sd046 vs. 2.6.21-CFSv7
- From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:29:45 -0400
System: Intel 6600 Core2duo, 2GB RAM, X nice 0 for all tests, display using i945G framebuffer
Test: playing a 'toon with mplayer while kernel build -j20 running.
Tuning: not yet, all scheduler parameters were default
Result: base 2.6.21 showed some pauses and after the pause the sound got louder for a short time (<500ms). With sd-0.46 the playback had many glitches and finally just stopped with the display looping on a small number of frames and no sound. The skips were repeatable, the hang was only two of five runs, I didn't let them go until the make finished (todo list) but killed the mplayer after 10-15 sec. No glitches observed with cfsv7, I thought I saw one but repeating with granularity set to 500000 and then with no make running convinced me that it's just a crappy piece of animation at that point.
I ran glxgears, again sd-0.46 had frequent pauses and uneven fps reported. Stock 2.6.21 had a visible pause when the frame rate was output, otherwise minimal pauses. CFSv7 appeared smooth at about 250 fps.
All tests gave acceptable typing echo, it seems that X is getting enough time at that load to echo without major issues.
I will be doing tests with server load later this week, have to add disk for the database.
Hope this initial report is useful, I may be able to update ctxbench later today and try that.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [REPORT] 2.6.21 vs. 2.6.21-sd046 vs. 2.6.21-CFSv7
- From: Bill Davidsen
- Re: [REPORT] 2.6.21 vs. 2.6.21-sd046 vs. 2.6.21-CFSv7
- Prev by Date: Re: [2/6] add config option to vmalloc stacks (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default)
- Next by Date: Re: [4/6] go BUG on vmallocspace in __pa() (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default)
- Previous by thread: AMD dual core opetron optimization
- Next by thread: Re: [REPORT] 2.6.21 vs. 2.6.21-sd046 vs. 2.6.21-CFSv7
- Index(es):