Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 00:55:04 EST

> Within reason, it's not the number of clients that X has that causes its
> CPU bandwidth use to sky rocket and cause problems. It's more to to
> with what type of clients they are. Most GUIs (even ones that are
> constantly updating visual data (e.g. gkrellm -- I can open quite a
> large number of these without increasing X's CPU usage very much)) cause
> very little load on the X server. The exceptions to this are the

there is actually 2 and not just 1 "X server", and they are VERY VERY
different in behavior.

Case 1: Accelerated driver

If X talks to a decent enough card it supports will with acceleration,
it will be very rare for X itself to spend any kind of significant
amount of CPU time, all the really heavy stuff is done in hardware, and
asynchronously at that. A bit of batching will greatly improve system
performance in this case.

Case 2: Unaccelerated VESA

Some drivers in X, especially the VESA and NV drivers (which are quite
common, vesa is used on all hardware without a special driver nowadays),
have no or not enough acceleration to matter for modern desktops. This
means the CPU is doing all the heavy lifting, in the X program. In this
case even a simple "move the window a bit" becomes quite a bit of a CPU
hog already.

The cases are fundamentally different in behavior, because in the first
case, X hardly consumes the time it would get in any scheme, while in
the second case X really is CPU bound and will happily consume any CPU
time it can get.

if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at)
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at