On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Roland Scheidegger wrote: > Dieter Nützel wrote: > >Back to Linux's 'normal' one solve it. > > This is interesting, though. The use of a different scheduler should > probably not have such a huge impact on performance (if no other cpu or > io-heavy processes are running). > Are you using pageflip? If no the r200CopyBuffer calls sched_yield() > which potentially could cause such a difference. But if you're using > pageflip I'm not sure why there would be such a drastic difference.
Isn't sched_yield() a really bad idea under 2.6 kernels if you actually wan't a lot of CPU time overall? It puts the process on the back of the expired queue, which means IIRC that it won't get another timeslice until every process in the active queue has expired. cheers, Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
