best compromise about interactivity, smoothness and energy savings
otherwise I could also use the rt-kernel ;)
or aren't there that much energy savings with tickless enabled ?
you could set the ticks from 1000hz down to 300hz, which will have 70percent of the energy savings of tickless.
aren't cgroups important for the coming systemd?
If so, then the most important feature of a new coming version of RIFS !
I do not recommend using tickless because the algorithm RIFS-ES used works bad with tickless
Thanks. I can't test because I can't find the difference between them.
2.-ES has different method to decide whether we should increase the priority of a sleeper.And these idea is from the clasaic Unix scheduler and I have enhanced it.
4.I am the author of these 2 scheduler and my feeling might be a bit subjective.Also if the others have claimed that it is good , it will be more powerful than my words.
You didnt answer what RIFS-v2 is about in more detail!
I am not a big tester. I just have a good 'feeling':
BFS feels a bit faster when low load (only video using kaffeine)
RIFS-ES feels the same if low load or high load (compile + video)
But now I tried to compile it on a netbook with Intel Atom CPU:
block/built-in.o: In function `__blk_complete_request':
(.text+0x8345): undefined reference to `cpus_share_cache'
This time I don't know how to fix it. :(
//EDIT: Fixed by changing
shared = cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);
shared = true; // Hardcoded for HT, else: cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);
This code is for HyperThreading CPUs only and may fail on dual (or more) core CPUs. Also I couldn't test it yet as the netbook is slow and I have to do a lot more before I'm able to reboot.