Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Con Kolivas is working on a new scheduler for Desktop/Multimedia/Gaming PCs

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ant P. View Post
    Oh well, all I can do is demonstrate a 50% performance improvement. I can't cure blind fanboyism from people who refuse to even look for themselves, and so I am done in this thread.
    Well, Ingo showed even 90.1% CFS performance advantage over BFS... Fanboism you say?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,773

    Default

    I posted proof on lkml. See the latencytop and tracing results. Also, with so many people confirming, this must be a cabal/conspiracy to destroy the mainline scheduler, right? :P

    Seriously. Con's code helps *immensely* not only here, but elsewhere too (the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I posted proof on lkml. See the latencytop and tracing results. Also, with so many people confirming, this must be a cabal/conspiracy to destroy the mainline scheduler, right? :P
    Heh, this is what I thought (don't forget some note in wikipedia ;p).

    Seriously. Con's code helps *immensely* not only here, but elsewhere too (the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)
    Let's hope devs will do everything to make things better. I just don't like when people base their opinions on something weak (I'm not according to you). P.S. mentioning Gentoo I thought only about custom configs, I'm not saying there's something wrong with it.
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-09-2009 at 08:53 AM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    the Android guys are having multiple orgasms already, and obviously they're not using Gentoo.)
    Woahhhh hold on Johnson. Someone tell me whats going on here.

  5. #25

    Default

    i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

    this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
    i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

    this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.
    Ya, I kinda snickered at that too.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
    i would like to point out that ingo's test hardware puts it at the highest point Con said he thought it would scale too.... a 16 thread machine...

    this is meant as a *desktop* scheduler, a dual quad core hyper-threading system is not exactly a typical desktop PC.
    There's no doubt CFS beats BFS in performance (shouldn't bfs be better from beginning and then just drastically choke when more cores are involved? I do not know, but maybe all cores were used from begining hmm...), but what counts the most on desktops is responsiveness and this is what someone should measure.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    Just compiled a .31 final kernel with bfs 211 patch and it crashed after a few minutes. Does not seem to be that stable yet.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Ya, I kinda snickered at that too.
    Ingo may not have meant it like this, but using such hardware really felt like a deliberate attempt to disprove Con's scheduler.

    I'm on the fence about this issue, since I haven't really felt any issues with the current scheduler, but if the improvements on single-, dual-, tri- and quad-core systems are repeatable (you know, the hardware desktop PCs actually *have*), then we might have something good on our hands.

    The issue is that kernel devs are (rightly) extremely resistant to change on this area. However, if this shows so significant improvements that Android and other distros adapt it (despite being an out of tree patch), we will likely see one of two things:
    1. This makes it into the kernel. (Patch from Con? Yeah, right...)
    2. CFS is improved to match BFS on the desktop.

    Both outcomes are good from my point of view!

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post

    1. This makes it into the kernel. (Patch from Con? Yeah, right...)
    Who knows? However, distros can provide bsf patched kernels (not default ones, but can gave opportunity to install such kernels from repos).

    2. CFS is improved to match BFS on the desktop.
    This is what's actually going on and if they fix issues which some people report bfs probably won't be interesting.

    http://marc.info/?t=125227083800005&r=1&w=2

    Even Con replied :>
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-10-2009 at 04:35 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •