Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Optimizes Bitcoin Mining On R600 LLVM OpenCL

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

  • #21
    How does that have to do with anything? There are already several schedulers in-kernel, why not one more with BFS?

    I am not saying it should become default...

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
      BFS got rejected because it didn't scale. for 2 to 8 CPU cores it was fine, but beyond that it tanked. CFS scales perfectly from 1 to 100 cores, and beyond. Developers thought it wiser to go with the system that scales the most. especially considering Octo-Core CPU's are already in the market and probably aren't that far away from being used.
      I can add to what you say that it is not really the number CPU cores that limit BFS but instead the fact that it has a single run queue and it doesnt matter for the "average" user load. Check by yourself, if I do top right now, I have 3 running processes and 197 sleeping.

      What is killing BFS is the linear search in the list of processes to find the next one to schedule. CFS will scale better on systems that have few hundreds or thousands of simultaneous running processes. IMO, this is not a typical real-life load.

      Besides, You could improve BFS by changing the data structure holding the tasks. What if, instead of a linked list, BFS would be using a heap?

      But then, Im not sure Con would like the idea as it goes against the KISS design philosophy that Con used while developing BFS.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
        How does that have to do with anything? There are already several schedulers in-kernel, why not one more with BFS?

        I am not saying it should become default...
        Can you name one? I believe that there are several IO schedulers but CFS is the only official task scheduler.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
          How does that have to do with anything? There are already several schedulers in-kernel, why not one more with BFS?

          I am not saying it should become default...
          There are several IO schedulers, Varik, but CPU schedulers have always been kept to just one: CFS

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
            Somehow it feels that Con Kolivas is disliked by some guys, or why else would you talk about bfgminer, a fork of Koliva's cgminer that mainly just merges in his patches as he keeps on developing?

            Also the whole situation of BFS not being in-kernel. Many tests show BFS to have superior performance to CFS in some workloads and anyone can agree the complexity is an order of magnitude smaller.

            What has he done to be closed out like this?
            In fact he is genius and this alone brings him pain because other people can't stand genius humans...

            In fact even the idea of the CFS is his mental work this guy worked on this years before.

            And the only true argument against him: he is not a full time professional programmer-... because he is a Doctor for health.

            These people are sick!

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
              In fact he is genius and this alone brings him pain because other people can't stand genius humans...

              In fact even the idea of the CFS is his mental work this guy worked on this years before.

              And the only true argument against him: he is not a full time professional programmer-... because he is a Doctor for health.

              These people are sick!
              Scott is that you?
              http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scot...petry_scandal/

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
                So many butt-hurt people in this thread angry at not being savvy enough to be in the ones who benefited most of Bitcoin. But fear not, even though the gold rush is over and no easy money is to be made anymore, it still works as a revolutionary technology bringing cash to the world of internet.

                You have to realize that we simply have not had cash online before. And if you cannot see the benefit of having it compared to the strictly controlled world of credit cards and paypal, then you must be blind.
                Lol, you didn't make any money, you lost it in increased electrical and cooling costs, the only thing you can trade for it is some hosting services from some sketchy hosts or that moron that wanted to sell his house for bitcoins.

                Let me know when you can walk up to a dealership and buy a car with bitcoins, you can't even buy a TV on Amazon with them, you can't get a pair of shoes off Zappos, you can't buy a hard drive off Newegg, you can't buy a camera lens off Adorama. Hell, go to Zareason, System76, Ohava or ThinkPeguin and try and buy a laptop with bitcoins.

                You can't do it can you? You know why? It isn't money and all you've managed to do is waste time and electricity masturbating your failed libertarian fantasies.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                  That's all fine and dandy, but any value of your "real" currency can be destroyed at the whim of one organization at the center. The desire to eliminate this single point of failure lead to Bitcoin and similar schemes.

                  In that respect, Bitcoin is much more similar to commodities used as money, such as gold. Gold is not backed by anything either, aside from a few insignificant industrial uses.

                  Don't laugh, but the retards, doomsdayers, mafias and terrorists have managed to create a worldwide decentralized system where you can exchange goods for Bitcoins. Bitcoin may not be enough to run a country's economy on, but it serves a number of people's interests well enough.
                  Those organizations are going to trade for actual cash and goods at some point, they are using them as a line of credit or are cashing in bitcoins for actual money.

                  Single point of failure backed by the value of all of the oil, natural gas, and everything on the periodic table that can be pulled out of the ground sounds a whole lot more stable then something based entirely on the psychosis of a bunch of delusional morons.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                    Single point of failure backed by the value of all of the oil, natural gas, and everything on the periodic table that can be pulled out of the ground sounds a whole lot more stable then something based entirely on the psychosis of a bunch of delusional morons.
                    I don't think you understand. The organization in control of your "real" currency can decree that its value is half tomorrow. And the risk of this happening is non-negligible, which is why national banks typically keep diverse currency reserves (not only a single reserve currency).

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                      The organization in control of your "real" currency can decree that its value is half tomorrow.
                      Actually this is what going to happen with JPY. Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda decide double Japan's money supply in two years (not actually his own decision, but decision of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe). Just example.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X