BFS Scheduler v0.444 For Linux 3.12
Phoronix: BFS Scheduler v0.444 For Linux 3.12
The BFS Linux kernel scheduler by Con Kolivas is up to version 0.444 this week and this updated scheduler is available for the Linux 3.12 kernel...
Yes, we want to see benchmarks. Not meaningless CPU bound tasks or disk throughput benchmarks, but real world latency measurements that show the differences a gamer would experience.
Originally Posted by phoronix
"Interested in seeing some fresh benchmarks of BFS?"
As 443 was available for 3.12, too, this article is misleading. Is a bugfix really newsworthy?
Wake me when there's BFS for 3.13
I'd definitely be interested in some meaningful* benchmarks - I'm currently using BFS and it seems as if the latency is lower than a stock kernel, but knowing it's meant to be better could well be a bias.
*As someone said above there's no point in benchmarks that test the wrong thing, and Phoronix does have a thing for meaningless ones.
IO- or CPU-bound benchmarks would be interesting to see if there's a downside there compared to CFS, but latency is the main selling point and supposed advantage for BFS.
Comprehensive benchmarks would be appreciated.
By definition, just about any scheduler will lower latency over a fair scheduler, since a fair scheduler couldn't give a damn about how much an application needs to run, just that other apps haven't. For gaming, CFS is probably the worst possible scheduler you can use.
Originally Posted by FLHerne
I don't think that's entirely correct, despite the name. CFS actually handles latency better than previous schedulers such as the old O(1). It has a fair design, sure, but overall latency is relatively good. Whether it is better or worse than BFS is another matter. Certainly comparisons between older versions of CFS and BFS had BFS winning but the improvements appear to be smaller in newer releases. Good benchmarks would certainly help.
Originally Posted by gamerk2
In particular, I'm interested how it affects latency under heavy load for both user responsiveness and GUI draws per second.
I actually stopped using BFS in kernel 3.12 because of the previous hibernaton/sleep problems (this is a workstation laptop I depend on).
Honestly, CFS seems fine, until I am trying to run Splunk (with the unix plugin) on it in the background which uses 100% of my 4 virtual cores (it would use more if it could). BFS did much better there.