Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BFS Scheduler Benchmarks

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

  • #91
    The patch applies to 2.6.31 kernel. If the kernel is already patched, you need to merge patches yourself... It seems you are one step forward on 2.6.31.1

    Comment


    • #92
      You can ignore that error. It just tries to append an "-bfs240" to your kernel name. You can that yourself.

      Comment


      • #93
        So the kernel is patched now? I just compile and the new kernel image will use the BFS scheduler automatically?

        Comment


        • #94
          Assuming you know how to install the resulting kernel and editing /boot/grub/grub.conf to boot it :P

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            Assuming you know how to install the resulting kernel and editing /boot/grub/grub.conf to boot it :P
            I'll do my best
            I mean there isn't any option in the kernel config which permits you to choose what scheduler you use?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Apopas View Post
              I'll do my best
              I mean there isn't any option in the kernel config which permits you to choose what scheduler you use?
              Nope. The BFS patch completely removes CFS from the kernel.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                Nope. The BFS patch completely removes CFS from the kernel.
                M$ practices...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Well, is there any way to check that indeed the BFS scheduler has been applied?
                  I don't see any difference in my system in comparison with the previous kernel.
                  No boosts, no slowdowns, no hangs, nothing... while I expected serious problems since I use reiserfs which causes problems with BFS according to Kolivas.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                    M$ practices...
                    No, more like a pissing match between Con and the LKML bunch.

                    Think something along the lines of what you end up seeing from Theo & the OpenBSD crowd and our bunch and you'd have it a lot closer. Happens from to time with egos in play.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                      Happens from to time with egos in play.
                      From time to time?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                        No, more like a pissing match between Con and the LKML bunch.
                        Or maybe the kernel devs refuse to implement pluggable schedulers, so the only solution is to rip the existing one out.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                          Well, is there any way to check that indeed the BFS scheduler has been applied?
                          I don't see any difference in my system in comparison with the previous kernel.
                          No boosts, no slowdowns, no hangs, nothing... while I expected serious problems since I use reiserfs which causes problems with BFS according to Kolivas.
                          Well, if you had no interactivity problems before, then there's nothing to "improve" in the first place. If you don't have problems like those described here:

                          http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/886413

                          Then your machine is not affected by the CFS interactivity problems.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            Well, if you had no interactivity problems before, then there's nothing to "improve" in the first place. If you don't have problems like those described here:

                            http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/886413

                            Then your machine is not affected by the CFS interactivity problems.
                            No I didn't have any of these problems. Also, I have a single core processor while BFS sines with multicores according to its creator. But not even a single regression or problem with the new scheduler? Strange...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                              No I didn't have any of these problems. Also, I have a single core processor while BFS sines with multicores according to its creator. But not even a single regression or problem with the new scheduler? Strange...
                              Some bugs are probably SMP related

                              Comment


                              • From other reports I saw, single-processor systems don't seem to suffer from this. So all is fine there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X