Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Con Kolivas is working on a new scheduler for Desktop/Multimedia/Gaming PCs

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
    Oh well, all I can do is demonstrate a 50% performance improvement. I can't cure blind fanboyism from people who refuse to even look for themselves, and so I am done in this thread.
    Well, Ingo showed even 90.1% CFS performance advantage over BFS... Fanboism you say?

    Comment


    • #22
      I posted proof on lkml. See the latencytop and tracing results. Also, with so many people confirming, this must be a cabal/conspiracy to destroy the mainline scheduler, right? :P

      Seriously. Con's code helps *immensely* not only here, but elsewhere too (the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        I posted proof on lkml. See the latencytop and tracing results. Also, with so many people confirming, this must be a cabal/conspiracy to destroy the mainline scheduler, right? :P
        Heh, this is what I thought (don't forget some note in wikipedia ;p).

        Seriously. Con's code helps *immensely* not only here, but elsewhere too (the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)
        Let's hope devs will do everything to make things better. I just don't like when people base their opinions on something weak (I'm not according to you). P.S. mentioning Gentoo I thought only about custom configs, I'm not saying there's something wrong with it.
        Last edited by kraftman; 09-09-2009, 08:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #24
          the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)
          Woahhhh hold on Johnson. Someone tell me whats going on here.

          Comment


          • #25
            i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

            this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
              i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

              this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.
              Ya, I kinda snickered at that too.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
                i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

                this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.
                There's no doubt CFS beats BFS in performance (shouldn't bfs be better from beginning and then just drastically choke when more cores are involved? I do not know, but maybe all cores were used from begining hmm...), but what counts the most on desktops is responsiveness and this is what someone should measure.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Just compiled a .31 final kernel with bfs 211 patch and it crashed after a few minutes. Does not seem to be that stable yet.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    Ya, I kinda snickered at that too.
                    Ingo may not have meant it like this, but using such hardware really felt like a deliberate attempt to disprove Con's scheduler.

                    I'm on the fence about this issue, since I haven't really felt any issues with the current scheduler, but if the improvements on single-, dual-, tri- and quad-core systems are repeatable (you know, the hardware desktop PCs actually *have*), then we might have something good on our hands.

                    The issue is that kernel devs are (rightly) extremely resistant to change on this area. However, if this shows so significant improvements that Android and other distros adapt it (despite being an out of tree patch), we will likely see one of two things:
                    1. This makes it into the kernel. (Patch from Con? Yeah, right...)
                    2. CFS is improved to match BFS on the desktop.

                    Both outcomes are good from my point of view!

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post

                      1. This makes it into the kernel. (Patch from Con? Yeah, right...)
                      Who knows? However, distros can provide bsf patched kernels (not default ones, but can gave opportunity to install such kernels from repos).

                      2. CFS is improved to match BFS on the desktop.
                      This is what's actually going on and if they fix issues which some people report bfs probably won't be interesting.

                      http://marc.info/?t=125227083800005&r=1&w=2

                      Even Con replied :>
                      Last edited by kraftman; 09-10-2009, 04:35 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X