More notes.
galciv+wine even with hdparm -a is still too chuggy even within the
game. Wineserver drops down to a 1-3% in game play but wine processes +x
add up to 95 - 100% and slows things down. Using other windows in X
takes long pauses. Not like vanilla 260 at all which was very smooth in
the game and switching between apps.
gaxt wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:48, gaxt wrote:
>>
>>> I tried O11. Still chuggy in the AVIs and then locks out input into X. I
>>> switch to Alt-F1 console and hear the video advance, switch back, it
>>> pauses, switch to Alt-F1 etc. to get it through the video and then it's
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I moved my /home to another hard drive last night (same
>>> 7200 rpms) to get more space. It makes no difference to performance.
>>> 260-test2-vanilla was quite good and -mm1 and -O11 are chuggy and lock
>>> out input to X and require switching to virtual console to advance
>>> through the videos.
>>>
>>> If there is some other data I can provide you, let me know.
>>
>>
>>
>> What top shows as the PRI of all the important processes concerned
>> during all this would be helpful.
>>
>> Con
>
>
> It's hard to grab top info as the interface freezes up. I'd have to ssh
> in from another system.
>
> However, browsing lkml, I noticed someone saying I/O throughput was
> affected by a readahead setting of 256 instead of 512 using hdparm -a
> ###. I changed the readahead on my root and home drives and galciv was
> able to load (with some mild stuttering in the movies).
>
> I've never adjusted this setting before. Perhaps it compensates for
> scheduler activity by allowing the system to draw more data within a
> given timeslice? Or am I babbling?
>
> Running top while glaciv + wine is running with the new hdparm -a 512
> setting, I can mention the following patterns:
>
> When loading up playing AVIs, the top are wineserver, wine, wine, and X
> (there is also another wine process). When the game chugs/pauses badly
> in playing an avi, wineserver leaps to the top with >50% CPU with
> wineserver+wine processes+x taking 100% CPU. Then when chugging lapses,
> wineserver drops down to the 26% range and the other wine processes are
> the same or a bit above. When the game is loaded, two wine processes at
> 21% CPU each are at top, then X with 5-10% then wineserver with 2-3% (a
> huge drop) or even a couple of appas above wineserver.
>
> Perhaps this data helps?
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:42 EST