Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Can you try the new version of RSDL. Assuming it doesn't oops on you it
has some accounting bugfixes which may have been biting you.
Retesting today with 2.6.21-rc3-git7 + 2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.30.patch.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Can you try the new version of RSDL. Assuming it doesn't oops on you it
> > has some accounting bugfixes which may have been biting you.
>
> Retesting today with 2.6.21-rc3-git7 + 2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.30.patch.
>
> Still
Con Kolivas wrote:
Can you try the new version of RSDL. Assuming it doesn't oops on you it has
some accounting bugfixes which may have been biting you.
Retesting today with 2.6.21-rc3-git7 + 2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.30.patch.
Still not pleasant to use the GUI with a kernel build (-j1 or -j2)
On Sunday 11 March 2007 23:38, James Cloos wrote:
> |> See:
> |> http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200/r200_i
> |>octl.c?revision=1.37&view=markup
>
> OK.
>
> Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
>
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.
|> See:
|>
http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200/r200_ioctl.c?revision=1.37&view=markup
OK.
Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git
and for the version of the above file in the master branch:
h
On Sunday 11 March 2007 10:34, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> > >> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> > >> My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
> > >
> > >..
> > >
>
On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> >> My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
> >
> >..
> >
> >> But when it's bad, it stinks.
> >> Like when a "make -j2" kern
On Sunday 11 March 2007 04:01, James Cloos wrote:
> > "Con" == Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Con> It's sad that sched_yield is still in our graphics card drivers ...
>
> I just did a recursive grep(1) on my mirror of the freedesktop git
> repos for sched_yield. This only checked
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
..
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a "make -j2" kernel rebuild is happening in a background window
And that's bad. When you say "i
> "Con" == Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Con> It's sad that sched_yield is still in our graphics card drivers ...
I just did a recursive grep(1) on my mirror of the freedesktop git
repos for sched_yield. This only checked the master branches as I
did not bother to script up somethi
On Saturday 10 March 2007 13:26, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very
> > reasonable to me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.
>
> Well that's with a noyield patch and your
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very reasonable to
> me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.
Well that's with a noyield patch and your sched_tick fix.
> But would you say it's still _adequate_ wi
On Saturday 10 March 2007 12:42, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:28:38PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give
On Mar 09, 2007, at 20:42:30, Matt Mackall wrote:
Doh, can't believe I didn't notice that. That's apparently a
default in Debian/unstable (not sure where to tweak it).
Run this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
It should ask you if you want to run the X-server at a lower
(
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:28:38PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give me the output of 'top
> > > -b' running for a few seconds du
On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give me the output of 'top
> > -b' running for a few seconds during the whole affair?
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://selenic.com/baseli
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:02:25PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:12, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Koli
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:12, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 10:06, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:37AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:37AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > So what's different between makes in parallel and make -j 5?
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:12:07AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Koli
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:12:07AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
(...)
> > Matt, could you check with plain 2.6.20 + Con's patch ? It is possible
> > that he added bugs when porting to -mm, or that someting in -mm causes
> > the trouble. Your experience with -mm seems so much different from mine
> > wi
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > >
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrot
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta t
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta to
> > > newly-started processes.
> >
> > Ah that's some nice
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:46:24PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> A priori, this load should be manageable by RSDL as the interactive
> loads are all pretty small. So I wrote a little Python script that
> basically continuously memcpys some 16MB chunks of memory:
>
> #!/usr/bin/python
> a = "a" * 16
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta to
> > newly-started processes.
>
> Ah that's some nice detective work there. Mainline does some rather complex
> accounting on s
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Ok, I've now disabled sched_yield (I'm using xorg radeon drivers).
Great.
> So far:
>
> rc2-mm2 RSDL RSDL+NO_HZ RSDL+NO_HZ+no_yield estimated CPU
> no load
> berylgood good great great~30% at 60
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:15:38AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> How odd. I would have thought that if an interaction was to occur it would
> have been without the new feature. Clearly what you describe without NO_HZ is
> not the expected behaviour with RSDL. I wonder what went wrong. Are you on
>
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:26:15AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > How odd. I would have thought that if an interaction was to occur it would
> > have been without the new feature. Clearly what you describe without NO_HZ
> > is not the expected behaviour with RSDL. I wonder what went wrong. Are you
>
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> > idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
> > shows less load. Under 'make', Be
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly impro
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
>
> No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
> which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
Thats good.
> But when it's bad, it stinks.
> Like when a "
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> > > idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> > idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
> > shows less load. Under 'make', Be
Mark Lord wrote:
Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a "make -j2" kernel rebuild is happening in a background wi
Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a "make -j2" kernel rebuild is happening in a background window
This is on a
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:07:06PM +0300, Serge Belyshev wrote:
>> If you see sched_yield() when stracing any 3d program, I suggest you
>> to try this bruteforce workaround, which works fine for me,
>> disable sched_yield():
>
> May I suggest LD_
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:07:06PM +0300, Serge Belyshev wrote:
> If you see sched_yield() when stracing any 3d program, I suggest you
> to try this bruteforce workaround, which works fine for me,
> disable sched_yield():
May I suggest LD_PRELOAD of a library consisting of only a nopped
sched_yiel
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 18:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
...
>>
>> With a single non-parallel make running (all in cache, mind you), the
>> system kicks up into just about 100% CPU usage at full speed. Desktop
>> spinning becomes between 10x to 100x slower (from
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
> shows less load. Under 'make', Beryl is still responsive as is Galeon.
> No sign of lagging mouse or t
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Well then I suppose something must be broken. When my box is idle, I
> can grab my desktop and spin it around and generate less than 25% CPU
> with the CPU stepped all the way down from 1.7GHz to 600MHz (Beryl is
> actually much snappier than man
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:58AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:28:03PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2007 16:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > First off, let me say that I think your approach has great promise,
> > > but I'm afraid it doesn't work so well
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:28:03PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 16:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > First off, let me say that I think your approach has great promise,
> > but I'm afraid it doesn't work so well here yet.
> >
> > Box is an R51 Thinkpad, 1.7GHz Pentium M. I'm using
On Friday 09 March 2007 16:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> First off, let me say that I think your approach has great promise,
> but I'm afraid it doesn't work so well here yet.
>
> Box is an R51 Thinkpad, 1.7GHz Pentium M. I'm using a make -j 5 as a
> test load.
>
> With 2.6.21-rc2-mm2, I get slightly s
First off, let me say that I think your approach has great promise,
but I'm afraid it doesn't work so well here yet.
Box is an R51 Thinkpad, 1.7GHz Pentium M. I'm using a make -j 5 as a
test load.
With 2.6.21-rc2-mm2, I get slightly sluggish response for opening new
terminals, scrolling in Galeon
52 matches
Mail list logo
