Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

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

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    @Svartalf: Trippppple Kill

    @Michael: Thanks. I eagerly anticipate this 1

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    BFS benchmarks coming next week off 2.6.31 final.
    Please don't forget to also check with mainline but with NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS disabled. I assume that kernel debug features will be disabled for benchmarks, so to disable that option you can simply change the default from 1 to 0 in kernel/sched_features.h.

    PS:
    I suppose everyone knows that BFS will not win any benchmarks, right? The Phoronix Test Suite can not benchmark any of the issues BFS tries to solve.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Please don't forget to also check with mainline but with NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS disabled. I assume that kernel debug features will be disabled for benchmarks, so to disable that option you can simply change the default from 1 to 0 in kernel/sched_features.h.

    PS:
    I suppose everyone knows that BFS will not win any benchmarks, right? The Phoronix Test Suite can not benchmark any of the issues BFS tries to solve.
    I've seen rumors of BFS significantly decreasing compile times. Something like "BFS turned a 12 hour compile into 10 hours!!!" - I forget where I saw it.

    He could also do FPS and gtkperf benches with a background process burning cpu, or something like that.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StringCheesian View Post
    I've seen rumors of BFS significantly decreasing compile times. Something like "BFS turned a 12 hour compile into 10 hours!!!" - I forget where I saw it.
    This is due to a regression in mainline where CPUs are under-utilized. For example a "make -j2" in dual-core machine only uses about 90% CPU. BFS uses 100% so yes, it finishes faster. Not sure if everyone is affected here.

    He could also do FPS and gtkperf benches with a background process burning cpu, or something like that.
    That one is actually pretty much the whole point of BFS.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    PS:
    I suppose everyone knows that BFS will not win any benchmarks, right? The Phoronix Test Suite can not benchmark any of the issues BFS tries to solve.
    Actually it can. BFS is "faster" here in pgbech, but I tested CFS in KDE terminal (and NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS were enabled) and BFS only in vt (DE was not running), because I have some issues with it in graphical environment. There are also problems with BFS like some processes get caught in infinite loops.

    CFS with NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS disabled should perform better in my opinion. Those problems with compilation times were also addressed.

    That one is actually pretty much the whole point of BFS
    The same about CFS. Just some issues had to be fixed

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    The same about CFS. Just some issues had to be fixed
    That's why it's always good to have alternatives and people "challenging" the system. Chances are if BFS didn't come around regressions (if it is even a regression or it was just broken from the start) probably wouldn't have been addressed in CFS for quite some time.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    That's why it's always good to have alternatives and people "challenging" the system. Chances are if BFS didn't come around regressions (if it is even a regression or it was just broken from the start) probably wouldn't have been addressed in CFS for quite some time.
    Yes, I completely agree. This is great.

    Reading some forums it seems mainly Intel CPUs have those problems. Like RealNC said.
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-13-2009 at 11:06 AM.

  8. #58

    Default

    Someone should measure graphic performance, because it's something very important on desktops (yeah, I know, but I believe there will be some games on Linux someday ). In Urban Terror I have double more FPS using CFS scheduler then with BFS (Amarok must be running same time!!! if I run only UT it seems FPS amount is the same). BFS also kills my input sometimes.

    When comes to compilation time BFS does better, but with *Sleepers* disabled in CFS it should be at least as good as BFS. Whatever Phoronix results will be, it seems it won't be fair comparison. BFS "ignores" just too many things which drives to dead input, processes and thus it can be "faster" in some benchmarks. It will be great to see fixed CFS vs more mature BFS results someday.

    P.S. I used generic Arch Linux kernel vs BFS patched kernel from AUR.

    Btw. with NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS pgbench result is much lower (BFS : CFS : CFS_NNFS using debugfs) - 1650 : 1350 : 935 +/-.
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-13-2009 at 01:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •