Re: low latency versus sched O(1) - and versus preempt

[=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Martin_Ma=E8ok?=]

Shortly: the winner is 2.4.18pre2aa2 for me (but it's close).

> > If I get enough free time, I will test O1+preempt versus O1+mini-ll.
> 
> O1+mini-ll feels better and smoother when playing tuxracer during
> kernel compilation (both nice +19 and +0 cases). (but I haven't tested
> O1+preempt+lockbreak)
> 
> However, comparing full_ll versus O(1)+mini_ll when there's no
> load, I get 10% higher framerate of XMMS/Jess audio/visual plugin.
> When there is some real load, O(1)+mini_ll performs ~30% higher
> framerate then just full_ll.
> 
> (So the winner for my desktop is still vanilla+full_ll+largenice while
> explicitely running non-interactive highload tasks with nice +19 (ie,
> compilations, cronjobs, mailserver...) the only "audio skipping" task
> is mkisofs)

(and if anybody is interested at all)

I have tested many different variants during last week:
/boot/bzImage-2.4.17          /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3-ac1_sh7_ml
/boot/bzImage-2.4.17-rc2      /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3-ac2-sh7-ml
/boot/bzImage-2.4.17sH5       /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3-ac2-sj0-ml
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre1      /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3h4p
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre2      /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3ll
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre2aa2   /boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre3sH4
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre2aa2r  /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre3sH5
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre2l     /boot/bzImage-2.4.18-pre4-si3-ml-p-l
/boot/bzImage-2.4.18pre2s     /boot/bzImage-2.4.9

And as far as I can tell, 2.4.18pre2aa2 is the winner for my desktop.

My usual (and testing workload) consists of KDE2.2.2, Mozilla,
xmms/mp3, mplayer/divx, tuxracer etc.. while 1-2 compilations on
background with nice +19. I experienced most interactive desktop with
-aa kernel.

(My HW is Atlon 850, 256MB RAM, KT133A VIA, Matrox G450).

-- 
         Martin Mačok                 http://underground.cz/
   [e-mail]        http://Xtrmntr.org/ORBman/