Originally posted by DeiF
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The v2 Rotary Interactivity Favor Scheduler
Collapse
X
-
Just let me post more about.
I am now posting this message with latt -c180 running(RIFS V3 now).
RIFS v3 run with very very little lag(I don't feel).
RIFS v2 has little lag.
RIFS v3-RC1 lag mouse stall.
RIFS v3-RC2 completely hang.
(Haven't posted yet)RIFS v4-RC1 completely hang, kernel halt(So RIFS v4-RC1 will be thrown)
BFS lag mouse stall.
For low configuration box, better to use RIFS v2
For normal configuration box, better use RIFS v3.
Comment
-
Everyone please take a look.
RIFS V2-BUGFIX2 will become the base version of RIFS.
V3,V4 will be deprecated(they are not as good as RIFS V2-BUGFIX2).
User report has told me that RIFS V2-BUGFIX2 work excellent.
RIFS V2-BUGFIX2 will become RIFS V5
Comment
-
where are all these patches ?
link ?
trying to find it but I only see V2 :/
edit:
found it: http://code.google.com/p/rifs-scheduler/downloads/list
could you please also make a version for 3.4 kernel ?
thanks !Last edited by kernelOfTruth; 11 June 2012, 08:16 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postwhere are all these patches ?
link ?
trying to find it but I only see V2 :/
edit:
found it: http://code.google.com/p/rifs-scheduler/downloads/list
could you please also make a version for 3.4 kernel ?
thanks !
I am planning to make a modular version of RIFS so that I don't need to post RIFS full patch everytime.
Also, BFS-O(1) designing improvement patch for original BFS has been released.
If you can't download RIFS-V2-Bugfix-kernel3.3.4 that means it is still generating.Last edited by 3766691; 15 June 2012, 11:54 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostIt was made very clear by CK after his experiments with massive loads that BFS is not meant to be used with -j128. It is meant to be used with high workloads, but not with *ridiculous* workloads. High workload is something like -j10 on a quad core. 128 is ridiculous, and 512 is even beyond ridiculous.
BFS is optimized for real use, not for throwing -j512 kernel builds at it. If you really intend to run such a massive workload (why?), you would run it SCHED_IDLEPRIO or nice 19 (or both). If you have written a new scheduler, posting information about how it handles -j128 "better" than the others says absolutely nothing about the merit of that scheduler. The only thing it says is that it handles something no one needs but doesn't say anything about how it handles stuff people actually *do* need.
See:
http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2010/11/...y-comment.html
x kernel too late. Sorry
In the next version I will have a new idea with designing.
Also an O(1) LOWEST DEADLINE PICKING for BFS is released.
Comment
Comment