I dont do benchmarks with my Atom netbook, but without BFS the kde 4.4.5 gui is fast enough. I dont see your problems. Maybe you enable too many effect which i dont use.
With 4.4.5 I also don't see problems with mainline.
Originally Posted by Kano
Btw, "fast enough" for me means it shouldn't drop below 50FPS. If it does, it's not acceptable because it's distracting. Also, as a Gentoo user, I want the GUI to continue to be 100% fluid and be able to watch 1080p videos even if I'm compiling in the background with 100% CPU utilization. For me, only BFS delivers here.
Last edited by RealNC; 08-16-2011 at 02:02 PM.
I dont know if you read the Con interview? He explained that Linux et al were not to nice.
Originally Posted by Saist
So, it seems that Linus has some attitude problems, and that Con got in his way. There are numerous unpleasant stories about Linus and his ego. Maybe you missed them?
And please, Kraftman and RealNC, calm down. Your argument does not help anyone.
Back on topic: I heard that Con's patch helps responsiveness a lot. It seems some people agree on this. In that case, maybe the benchmark should include responiveness somehow? Are there any responsiveness benchmarks out there?
No, he was talking about something else, but it doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine
if these benchmarks prove anything, it is that there isn't really any loss of throughput by using the BFS scheduler. This is actually a very good thing when considering that the scheduler aims at improving the responsiveness of desktops (not throughput), and often when one attempts to improve responsiveness it comes at the the cost of throughput. So logically, this article only proves that there is no downside to BFS, while leaving untested its upside. As someone who has been using BFS for most of its existence, while also usually testing out the mainline CFS with each new kernel release, there is no question that BFS is an improvement over CFS responsiveness. CFS has definately caught up a lot over the past year, but the difference between the two is still noticeable on a desktop.
haha I just looked at Cons blog http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/ , and noticed that he had written an entry that basically says what I just did. Well I promise I'm not just regurgitating what he says, it just happens to be the truth
Why don't you use 3.0.1-rt11? It's much better than BFS...
Originally Posted by RealNC
I'm not running a professional studio or a nuclear reactor. Just normal audio applications that don't need RT facilities to the point of overkill. And rebooting to an RT kernel every time I want to work on audio is just a nuisance. I want my Linux desktop to have the same capabilities as Windows and Mac OS X out of the box. Furthermore, there's configuration involved when running apps in RT. In contrast, BFS just works.
Originally Posted by darkbasic
So why should I be using the -rt kernel for audio apps? And it seems there's some agreement on this:
Take it easy. I didn't have problems understanding the phrase "millions hz" in the meaning of "a hole lot of hz". I don't think many would have problems doing so either. Like that:
Originally Posted by RealNC
"The million is sometimes used in the English language as a metaphor for a very large number, as in "Never in a million years" and "You're one in a million", or a hyperbole, as in "I've walked a million miles" and "You've asked the million dollar question"."