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 +
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.
>
>
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)
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 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 not
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 +
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=markup
>
> OK.
>
> Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
>
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git
|> See:
|>
http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200/r200_ioctl.c?revision=1.37=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:
| See:
|
http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200/r200_ioctl.c?revision=1.37view=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:
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=1.37view=markup
OK.
Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git
and
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"
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
> "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
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 something to
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 it
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 the master
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 kernel rebuild is
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.
..
But when it's bad,
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_
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
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
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:
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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" *
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
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
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',
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
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
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',
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 a make
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 here
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 many
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
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 ~30fps to
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
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_PRELOAD of
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
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
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', Beryl is
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 better
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 make
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 improved. At
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', Beryl is
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
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 600MHz
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 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
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 * 1024
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 detective
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 to
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 quanta
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 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 Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
My suspicion
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
with
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 Kolivas
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
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? Make's
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:
So
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
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
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
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
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 Kolivas
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/baseline
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 during the
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 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 me the
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_ with
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
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
