home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Wrap
Received: from sloth.swcp.com (sloth.swcp.com [198.59.115.25]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA26753 for <executor@nacm.com>; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:11:22 -0800 Received: from iclone.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by sloth.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with UUCP id BAA28899; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 01:11:21 -0700 Received: from beaut.ardi.com by mailhost with smtp (nextstep Smail3.1.29.0 #11) id m0tJFcZ-000YcHC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 01:06 MST Received: by beaut.ardi.com (linux Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0tJFcY-000278C; Sat, 25 Nov 95 01:06 MST Message-Id: <m0tJFcY-000278C@beaut.ardi.com> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 01:06 MST From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews) To: halv0019@gold.tc.umn.edu Cc: executor@nacm.com Subject: Re: Executor on Xaccel & XFree In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951124001537.205A-100000@Ika.umn.edu> References: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951124001537.205A-100000@Ika.umn.edu> Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com Precedence: bulk >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeffrey A Halverson <jeff@Ika.umn.edu> writes: [interesting stats deleted] Jeff> What I thought was particularly interesting was that Jeff> calculations seem to actually speed up with AccelX also. Jeff> Why is this? I was expecting those to stay constant, but Jeff> only have the video-related tests to improve... Can anyone Jeff> explain this odd phenomena? Of the three primary Executor engineers, I'm the least qualified to answer, but since nobody else is volunteering any info, here are my thoughts. I'm a little surprised, too. However, the way the program works is it does a bunch of tests and sees how much time elapses during the test. *During* the test speedometer does a little bit of graphics in that it changes the cursor. In addition, there are some fancy graphics done right before and right after the test and buffering may cause these to also affect the times. Furthermore, depending on how much memory you have, there could be paging that could affect things. I don't know how much memory you have, but I'd guess paging and if not paging, context switching overhead. It could be that XFree requires many more context switches even when idle than AccelX. Cotton might know. Jeff> Jeff --Cliff ctm@ardi.com