Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BFS Scheduler 0.446 Supports The Linux 3.13 Kernel

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

  • BFS Scheduler 0.446 Supports The Linux 3.13 Kernel

    Phoronix: BFS Scheduler 0.446 Supports The Linux 3.13 Kernel

    For users of the BFS scheduler patches to the kernel, they have been updated this week for the Linux 3.13 kernel...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Just curious, to anyone who uses the ck or pf patchesets, do the bfs schedulers actually help fix that annoying "disk io (especially usb interrupt based) makes the system unresponsive" mess that happens on generic kernels? I'm finding myself doing a lot more large file transfers at 300+ MB/s and it cripples even my i7 rig for their duration.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zanny View Post
      Just curious, to anyone who uses the ck or pf patchesets, do the bfs schedulers actually help fix that annoying "disk io (especially usb interrupt based) makes the system unresponsive" mess that happens on generic kernels? I'm finding myself doing a lot more large file transfers at 300+ MB/s and it cripples even my i7 rig for their duration.
      BFS doesn't affect your disk. It's a CPU scheduler. You'd have to use BFQ for that and enable it with "elevator=bfq" in the kernel line first. Apparently it is designed to keep the system responsive at all times.
      Demo of the performance of the BFQ storage-I/O scheduler on a hard disk.This video has been obsoleted by the following one:http://youtu.be/ZeNbS0rzpoYwhich i...
      Last edited by blackout23; 06 March 2014, 11:11 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zanny View Post
        Just curious, to anyone who uses the ck or pf patchesets, do the bfs schedulers actually help fix that annoying "disk io (especially usb interrupt based) makes the system unresponsive" mess that happens on generic kernels? I'm finding myself doing a lot more large file transfers at 300+ MB/s and it cripples even my i7 rig for their duration.
        it mitigates things but, of course, doesn't fix a problem, that isn't caused by or inherent to the cpu scheduling part

        "disk io (especially usb interrupt based) makes the system unresponsive"

        so how exactly does this show itself ?

        you have an SSD or raid harddrive enclosure attached to the USB 3.0 ports ? (referring to the usb interrupt part)


        will post some tweaks once I'm on linux again, currently on Windows - gaming some (Origin doesn't allow to install Mass Effect 3 & other games also don't work)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
          it mitigates things but, of course, doesn't fix a problem, that isn't caused by or inherent to the cpu scheduling part

          "disk io (especially usb interrupt based) makes the system unresponsive"

          so how exactly does this show itself ?

          you have an SSD or raid harddrive enclosure attached to the USB 3.0 ports ? (referring to the usb interrupt part)


          will post some tweaks once I'm on linux again, currently on Windows - gaming some (Origin doesn't allow to install Mass Effect 3 & other games also don't work)


          Code:
          echo "raise latency_timer for EHCI USB2.0"
          # raise priority of others:
          setpci -v -s 00:1a.0 latency_timer=80 # EHCI USB2.0
          setpci -v -s 00:1d.0 latency_timer=80 # EHCI USB2.0
          <-- of course modify according to your lspci output

          Code:
          echo 15 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/up_threshold
          echo 10 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_down_factor

          make sure that the:
          Code:
          dirty_expire_centisecs
          dirty_writeback_centisecs
          dirty_background_ratio
          dirty_ratio
          values are not too high


          make sure the (and more) following patchsets are included in your kernel:

          - [patch 0/2] mm: reduce reclaim stalls with heavy anon and dirty cache
          - mm: add strictlimit knob; http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/105809

          Comment

          Working...
          X