Two Years With Linux BFS, The Brain Fuck Scheduler

[kraftman]

BFS patch is not CK patchset, this was the thing when everything went wrong and YES it is not the same (hz thing is in CK, nothing to do with BFS)!

Another one who doesn't even know what was this about?

[F.Ultra]

Well, don't openarena and unigine benches also list the min fps? That should be a good indicator.

FPS is a throughout problem, not a latency one.

[Kirurgs]

Hi!

I'm not here to judge this, but RealNC seems to know what he's talking about, judging from posts he knows and talks specific things, while it seems that kraftman is not talking specific but overall and sometimes not correct or so.
BFS patch is not CK patchset, this was the thing when everything went wrong and YES it is not the same (hz thing is in CK, nothing to do with BFS)!

Anyhow, BFS for me works, not sure is it better at that wokrload and is poorer at other, but it works quite well. Throughput benchmarks is not the point of BFS at all, desktop experience is. Phoronix made excuses in Cons blog about those benches and promised to deliver proper benches what I'm personally are waiting to see.
Hope those ones will deliver us overview of CFS vs BFS where and how it's appropriate!

P.S. These "wrong or so" ones actually were not bad at all at least for me - we saw how throughput was affected by BFS

regards
Kirurgs

[kayosiii]

Maybe a good benchmark would be to record many streams of audio simultaneously via ardour and see how low you can get the buffer sizes in jack before xruns happen.

[RealNC]

I hope not :-/

[misiu_mp]

RealNC, Kraftman, you argue like a married couple before a divorce. With spit and venom. Have you met in real life yet?

[BlackStar]

Then what users should use it?

If you have to ask then this patch is not for you.

As the patch says, there is broken software that behaves better with obscene Hz values. Users who happen to rely on such software will be well aware of this issue and will appreciate the additional flexibility over CFS or default BFS. The rest will ignore it as if it never existed.

BFS works at the same Hz as CFS but offers improved responsiveness to some users. That's good enough for me.

[kebabbert]

Ok, maybe time to calm down a bit. It seems that both Kraftman and RealNC says the same thing? Or? No need to argue. Let us all conclude that BFS gives better responsiveness and let it stay there. Ok?

[kraftman]

I already told you that the patch you're talking about has a warning in it for stupid users that they shouldn't use it. What the fuck is your problem? Is your needle stuck?

Then what users should use it?

[RealNC]

It's your fault you've got problems with the things I didn't say, so stop your imaginary bullshit. You have no problems in blaming Linux overall, but you can't stand someone can blame your lovely BFS (what's more funny I didn't even blame it here). Next time when you'll give me some advices begin from yourself. When Con posts stupid patches like 10kHz (ten times more than standard) then it's hard to take sersiously something called brain f*uck scheduler. Someone said interesting thing about BFS thoroughput which was very good in Phoronix benchmarks as a proof it introduces better latency (which wasn't measured) with no cost in thoroughput. It can be like this, but the risky 10kHz patch I mentioned before can make some people wonder if there aren't downsides in other areas like safety etc. Just speculation, but not unfounded.

I already told you that the patch you're talking about has a warning in it for stupid users that they shouldn't use it. What the fuck is your problem? Is your needle stuck?

Here's what the patch says:

"There's some really badly broken software out there that is entirely dependant on HZ for its maximum performance. Raise the maximum HZ value to some higher and slightly unreasonable values up to some higher and completely obscene values."

"10000 Hz is an obscene value to use to run broken software that is Hz limited. Being over 1000, driver breakage is likely."

What part of "there's some really badly broken software out there that is entirely dependant on HZ for its maximum performance" don't you understand?