marcin wrote:
Hi
I've been comparing lately performance OpenGL apps against different
kernels 2.6.x and 2.4. Overall performance is comparable but a scheduler
of kernel 2.6 is very annoying (to say at least).
I have not tried it myself, but there is an option in kernel config
which
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:43, Rohit Sharma wrote:
marcin wrote:
Hi
I've been comparing lately performance OpenGL apps against different
kernels 2.6.x and 2.4. Overall performance is comparable but a scheduler
of kernel 2.6 is very annoying (to say at least).
I have not tried it myself,
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:43, Rohit Sharma wrote:
I have not tried it myself, but there is an option in kernel config
which facilitates the role of Low latency desktop in the 2.6 kernels.
A parameter can be set to 1000 [default] and can be
On Sun, 7 May 2006, marcin wrote:
If by Low latency desktop you mean Preemptible Kernel
(Low-Latency Desktop) then i have tried this and it doesn't help.
I set the kernel timer frequency to 100 Hz.
There are other things that affect the latencies too. One is the timer
frequency setting. The
On Sunday 07 May 2006 17:41, Tero Grundström wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:43, Rohit Sharma wrote:
I have not tried it myself, but there is an option in kernel config
which facilitates the role of Low latency desktop in the 2.6 kernels.
A
On Sunday 07 May 2006 17:41, Tero Grundström wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:43, Rohit Sharma wrote:
I have not tried it myself, but there is an option in kernel config
which facilitates the role of Low latency desktop in the 2.6 kernels.
A
On 5/7/06, Tero Grundström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, marcin wrote:
If by Low latency desktop you mean Preemptible Kernel
(Low-Latency Desktop) then i have tried this and it doesn't help.
I set the kernel timer frequency to 100 Hz.
There are other things that affect the
marcin wrote:
Can anyone tell me how to increase priority for OpenGL?
Thanks, Marcin
I am using gentoo-sources with the Anticipatory I/O sched and did not
notice a slow down when I ran glxgears and nbench. I get about 980 fps
on my laptop with or without nbench running. What kernel
marcin wrote:
Hi
I've been comparing lately performance OpenGL apps against different
kernels 2.6.x and 2.4. Overall performance is comparable but a scheduler
of kernel 2.6 is very annoying (to say at least).
Simple test:
Kernel 2.6
glxgears gives 1320 fps but if I simultaneously
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 17:41, Tero Grundström wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
are you sure?
AFAIR 250 is default since som time.
No, 1000 has always been the default for 2.6. kernels.
not anymore!
unpacked a 2.6.16
On 5/7/06, JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
marcin wrote:
Can anyone tell me how to increase priority for OpenGL?
Thanks, Marcin
I am using gentoo-sources with the Anticipatory I/O sched and did not
notice a slow down when I ran glxgears and nbench. I get about 980 fps
on my laptop with or
On 5/7/06, Eugene Rosenzweig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
marcin wrote:
Hi
I've been comparing lately performance OpenGL apps against different
kernels 2.6.x and 2.4. Overall performance is comparable but a scheduler
of kernel 2.6 is very annoying (to say at least).
Simple test:
Kernel 2.6
On 5/7/06, marcin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/7/06, JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
marcin wrote:
Can anyone tell me how to increase priority for OpenGL?
Thanks, Marcin
I am using gentoo-sources with the Anticipatory I/O sched and did not
notice a slow down when I ran glxgears and
marcin wrote:
On 5/7/06, JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
marcin wrote:
Can anyone tell me how to increase priority for OpenGL?
Thanks, Marcin
I am using gentoo-sources with the Anticipatory I/O sched and did not
notice a slow down when I ran glxgears and nbench. I get about 980 fps
on my
Hi,
AS stinks, when mldonkey is running. The whole system crawls, while waiting
for some moment, where it can access the harddisk, that is abused by
mldonkey.
CFQ is much better in that szenario.
BTW, nbench is a CPU/memory benchmark, right? So why should the IO-scheduler
has an influence on
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 19:20, Tero Grundström wrote:
Anyways, 1000Hz is still the preferred setting for desktop (according to
menuconfig and CK). That is of course only if you don't have problems.
yeah, but 250 is not worse in 'responsiveness'
marcin wrote:
I have tried some other tests
If I set export __GL_SYNC_TO_VBLANK=1 then everything is OK!
glxgears has 75 (as my vertrefresh) even if cpu burns
Without VBLANK
I have noticed that glxgears takes a lot of sys time.
$ watch -n 0,1 cat /proc/stat | grep cpu0 | cut -d' ' -f4
and
W.Kenworthy wrote:
I have just set up a Sony Vaio with an i915 that runs ~850-900fps -
acceptable, but how does this compare with your i915?
Sorry if you already mentioned this, but I have come on this thread
late.
Billk
My laptop is a Pentium M 1.73GHz with 1GB memory.
With gentoo-sources
On Sunday 07 May 2006 23:21, Tero Grundström wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 19:20, Tero Grundström wrote:
Anyways, 1000Hz is still the preferred setting for desktop (according to
menuconfig and CK). That is of course only if you don't have
P-M 1.2Ghz, CFQ 250Mhz.
I have found 1000hz doesn't help much with response (on my last system),
but did slow most benchmarks slightly - 250 was a good compromise.
I'll give the ant scheduler a try on the next reboot as I originally
went CFQ as ant seemed to cause lockout on high disk use - but
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Sunday 07 May 2006 23:21, Tero Grundström wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
I went 250Hz a long time ago, and it did not hurt me in any way. But I am
also only using vanilla kernels without patches ;)
Whether its
21 matches
Mail list logo
