Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking The Ubuntu "Low-Jitter" Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Sidicas is on the right track. Later poster is completely wrong.

    Indeed it should be easy to understand, that if kernel blocks for 5ms, rather than 0.2ms, timing jitter is going to be present, and alter framejitter, and also 5ms lost of 20ms, to calculate frame.

    Peace Be With You.
    Assuming I am the "later poster" could you please tell me how I am completely wrong?
    It could be a language issue but I don't understand how you fail to grasp that RT adds overhead. Yes, less jitter (i.e. smoother frame rates), but you also lose the ability to run for periods of uninterrupted time on the cpu, which is sometimes necessary in order for a frame to be completed. Now, I could see a setup where you prioritized frame completion and delivery (that is, it responds to the irqs from the gpu before almost anything else) over everything else but that would mean, necessarily, that you'd have a less responsive system since inputs would then be delayed. That kinda defeats the point.
    Setting up a RT machine requires a lot of thought.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
      Why is gamer2k posting in this thread? To be an example of how much babble can be done, that is not according to simple observation? "It spends time calculating preemption". LOL. The benchmarking even shows some higher numbers, and no other are below 1fps difference. What you do OBSERVE though, is a game that was choppy (low GRAPHICS throughput) to one that runs smoothly at 72fps. HIGHER throughput, when using preemption with graphics. Again, we do not care about theoretical numbers, that say nothing about what is ACTUALLY happening on screen, relating to USER experience. I really hate people who are that far removed from reality.

      Peace Be With You.

      I'm sorry, but you are just wrong.
      Michael benchmarks throughput fine and your kernel didn't perform any of these miracles you're talking about. We've seen his numbers, and they confirm what we know from theory: low latency doesn't increase throughput (in this context, FPS).
      You can have a choppy game but still high throughput (since it is an average). For simple scenes, and low kernel contention, you might generate a hundred frames in less than a second but other times when there is more gpu kernel communication, or more kernel contention, you might only manage 20 fps. So, over long periods that can average out to high fps but extreme jitter.
      Does that not make sense to you?

      Comment


      • Finally I have have my transparent os, with 0.2ms max jitter. If that doesn't appeal to you, instant sound, accurate FPS, low latency internet, well then..
        ??

        Peace Be With You.
        Last edited by Paradox Ethereal; 10-27-2017, 06:33 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
          Where the hell does these idiots come from. A whole tread with explanations, and sane thinking. And yet they don`t understand? Go and complain to Intel who makes the CPUs I like." reduce latency from low microseconds to tens of nanosecond "

          Finally I have have my transparent os, with 0.2ms max jitter. If that doesn't appeal to you, instant sound, accurate FPS, low latency internet, well then. You should buy some kind of framereducer. I mean seeing how much ignorance there is online, it will probably be a big hit. Finally you can get those 5 choppy frames. Some kind of LCD feature, so ofcourse the "throughput" still goes on behind.

          What a bunch of perplexingly stupid loosers. Anyway I am having a good time, and thought I'd share it. But ofcourse there are those who serve the firespirit satan, and denounce all that is good.

          Peace Be With You.
          I love the substantive responses of four year olds.
          I truly hope you are a troll and not the zealot you seem to be (seriously, "Peace Be With You" and yet you make the most disgusting statements preceding it...I'd imagine God would be pissed, if not for hypocrisy but at least blatant inconsistency).
          Ugh, mixing OS discussions with religious imagery (and seeming statements about morality).

          Comment


          • edit: outdated links.
            Last edited by Paradox Ethereal; 10-27-2017, 06:34 PM.

            Comment


            • edit: outdated.
              Last edited by Paradox Ethereal; 10-27-2017, 06:34 PM.

              Comment


              • And maybe that is the most important thing you can learn from this entire thread. Lowlatency/lowjitter is going to happen regardless. I just do it early.

                Peace Be With You.
                Last edited by Paradox Ethereal; 10-27-2017, 06:35 PM.

                Comment


                • Your best optimized kernel does not help when the gfx card or the cpu is too slow. When you enable vsync and the the rate goes down from 60 to 30 then it is definitely no kernel problem. When you manage to get 60 fps then the kernel is really unimportant.

                  Comment


                  • This is not about turning off Vsync. This is about accurate low-jitter FPS. Which apparently is real hard for many to understand. I am just happy God has graced me with intelligence, to pursue my own happiness in life. And that is what I will do.

                    Now this subject has been talked through, so no further comment should be neccesary. I can update the thread when I get the new low-latency h/w though, and give my view on that.

                    Peace Be With You.
                    Last edited by Paradox Ethereal; 10-27-2017, 06:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by liam View Post
                      I love the substantive responses of four year olds.
                      I truly hope you are a troll and not the zealot you seem to be (seriously, "Peace Be With You" and yet you make the most disgusting statements preceding it...I'd imagine God would be pissed, if not for hypocrisy but at least blatant inconsistency).
                      Ugh, mixing OS discussions with religious imagery (and seeming statements about morality).
                      He is both a zealot and a troll. ~ For one, he is Norwegian and a convert to Islam, and even has gone so far to now use an alias (islamic name) rather than the name he was given by his parents. He is the only person i know of that has "PRAISED BE GOD" written in the README's for his crappy plugins - which is odd to say the least. He's heretic even in his own faith (proven to be in another thread), he's just lucky he's a convert and not living in an islamic state.

                      And by the way, Liam is most certainly correct -> RT can affect throughput negatively, this is a well documented FACT.

                      I find it laughable that in the other thread (where PU and i got into an argument) he claimed that his 'low-jitter' kernel essentially made RT useless/not needed anymore, yet now a week or so later he plans to be his kernel using the RT patchset. lol. Even funnier, him posting on the rt-user-list;

                      Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated on rt-linux-user-list
                      I think it complains about not finding rootdevice. Anyway, I am getting a new machine, so it might not be much of an issue. If you still want to try and find the bug let me know. Also how do I compile without threadirqs, if I enable basic-rt, threadirqs are enabled in .config also.
                      Hey dumbass, did it not occur to you that the reason it enables threadirqs is because RT requires it? (your fucking dumb). After all, threadirqs while (now) mainline were originally a part of the RT patchset (merged into mainline in 2.6.39) and are a requirement. You should also learn how to configure your system, your root device problem is likely human error / bad config - ie: you weren't paying attention... I've got 3.6.3-rt6 installed and running no problem (although i use 3.4-rt since 3.6.3-rt is buggy, for now). I for one wouldn't put any stock into this wannabe kernel developer, who doesn't seem to know what he is doing, at all. Another funny example of PU stupidity;

                      Originally posted by from rt-linux-user-list
                      PU: Yes, it works fine without basic-rt, or full-rt. Do you know if basic-rt can
                      be compiled without threadirqs?

                      Tglx: No. And that's not interesting at all. We really want to know what's going wrong when you have irq threading enabled. You can also try the following. Compile the kernel without RT and add "threadirqs" on the kernel command line. So that's just mainline + irq threading. Does that work? In any case it would be helpful if you provide the full dmesg output of a failing boot.

                      PU: Ok, you really want to know. Well I can do anything to help you with that. Does dmseg contain info from last boot? Or can it be accessed from the console-thingy?
                      So aside from not knowing all that much about the linux kernel, apparently PU doesn't even know about logging in linux either... Nor does he actually provide any of the information Tglx is asking for (just like he provides no metrics to support is kernel being as great as he says).

                      I can only speak for myself - but I think you would have to be a complete moron to put any stock in PU's 'low-jitter' kernel. It's pretty obvious he is just an enthusiast, hacking (more like fumbling) around but not really knowing what he is doing. it's laughable shit really.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X