On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Hi, > > I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons: > I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when > people > were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with > the reports of huge improvements with his 2.4 kernel patches.
Well thats a reason if there ever were one... > ... > The second: too many patches. I only would have tried one or two, but the > ck-patchset is a lot bigger.. and I am a little bit uneasy about that. so use only the scheduler? nobody forces you to do many things.. > > But I tried a lot of Ingo's cfs patches - and it was a very pleasant > experience. Ingo reacted very fast on my feedback and when I hit a problem he > really tried to find the cause and solve it - and it always was one patch, so > I felt a lot less scared ;) > > My usual workload is very 'usual'. KDE desktop, kmail, konqueror, sometimes > xine or amarok providing some background noise while typing away in kate, > triplea, wesnoth or some other game when I need to 'rest' for a while. A lot > of compiling in the background, because I am one of these gentoo users. > > With cfs the experience was much more pleasant than with the 'old' scheduler. > Compiling did not hurt as much as usual anymore - the only thing that hurts > is swap.... > > But there is another thing I do regularly: I play ut2004. Not every single > day, but sometimes several times a day. 20minutes of mayhem and then back to > the desktop. > > And I do not see any problems with cfs and ut2004. The maximum FPS are indeed > a little bit lower (and you can argue that this really is not important if > the pre-game FPS in a level looking down on the floor go down from 390 to > 380FPS), but the minimum FPS went up! well, surely CFS is better than the old vanilla scheduler, also with 3d, and if you have that high fps, i doubt you will notice the effects me and others are having. it is not that it is bad, its just not as good as SD has shown to be possible.. > > In scenes when my system is fighting hard to provide the FPS, when the action > is high (like when fighting with half a douzend bots at a power node, while > some other bots are shooting into the mess) CFS is much better than the old > scheduler. It is a big difference if you get 6-10FPS or 15-25. > (I am playing with maximum 'beautifullness' - I would be able to get a lot > more FPS, if I wanted, but I want a nice scenery and maximum visual > effects ...) > > From my point of view 3D is a lot better with cfs. Better than old vanilla yes, but than SD? well, you should give it a try. > > Now the question for all the people who are bashing cfs for its bad 3d > performance: what am I doing wrong? As said, we never said CFS was worse than old vanilla, and we never said it was BAD, we did however say its not as good as SD :) > > Glück Auf, > Volker > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
