Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 106

Thread: BFS Scheduler Benchmarks

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,138

    Default BFS Scheduler Benchmarks

    Phoronix: BFS Scheduler Benchmarks

    A few weeks back Con Kolivas returned to the Linux kernel scene after parting ways with kernel development for two years. Con, who has contributed a great deal to the Linux kernel in the past particularly with CPU schedulers, returned and introduced BFS. BFS (not to be confused with the file-system of the same name) is a new scheduler for the Linux kernel that's designed for optimal performance on hardware that's more common with a majority of Linux desktop users, not massive data centers running dozens (and in some cases, hundreds) of CPUs. The BFS scheduler is designed to offer "extremely low latencies for excellent interactivity", according to Con Kolivas. In this article we have a set of benchmarks comparing BFS and the current default scheduler within the Linux kernel, the Completely Fair Scheduler.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14179

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    The Phoronix Test Suite automatically sets the number of make jobs for the compilation process to the number of logical CPU cores (in the case of the Intel Atom 330, the count is four) times two (thus a make jobs count of eight).
    you should have also a test where number of jobservers is equal to number of cores since its when bfs must bring most performance..


    quote from bfs faq
    make -j4 on a quad core machine with BFS
    is faster than *any* choice of job numbers on CFS

  3. #3

    Default

    can someone make a benchmark that times how long it takes for a gtk button to respond to a click. then the same test but with N CPU eating processes running at the same time, so we can see what happens when N approaches the number of CPU cores.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    51

    Default

    I found it interesting that BFS outperformed CFS on serving Apache pages, that one is sure to interest some people. Especially if it holds up with more processors.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    can someone make a benchmark that times how long it takes for a gtk button to respond to a click. then the same test but with N CPU eating processes running at the same time, so we can see what happens when N approaches the number of CPU cores.
    That's an quite interesting benchmark, that one should be added to the next version of PST

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wiscados View Post
    I found it interesting that BFS outperformed CFS on serving Apache pages, that one is sure to interest some people. Especially if it holds up with more processors.
    CFS is faster with fair_sleepers disabled. At least here.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    CFS is faster with fair_sleepers disabled. At least here.
    According to http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/30/84. Doesn't "fair_sleepers disabled" increase throughput ie batch processing but also increase latency?

    Seems that would make system responsiveness less than before. A tweak for servers, not desktops?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solitary View Post
    According to http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/30/84. Doesn't "fair_sleepers disabled" increase throughput ie batch processing but also increase latency?

    Seems that would make system responsiveness less than before. A tweak for servers, not desktops?
    It probably can have different effects on different configurations. It solved some people problems with latency:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/10/229

    I can't say a word about this, because my system is responsive in both cases.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default

    It's sad, but even Win95 had very good 2D acceleration,much better than any Linux distro I've tried on this Dual-Core box. Modern Windows OSes are a lot faster. The 2D GUI performance of Windows XP is out of this world.
    Linux can be just as fast: Extremely responsive system with GUI performance that rivals Windows XP.

    All you need is an older machine with a Radeon R200 card (Radeon 8500 ~ Radeon 9250) and this live CD:

    http://www.puppyisos.org/isos/2008-0...7-fglrx8.28.8/

    username: puppy passwd: linux

    Good old fglrx for R200 cards = the pinnacle of ATI's proprietary drivers for Linux

    You'll be amazed.
    Last edited by tuxdriver; 09-15-2009 at 04:02 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuxdriver View Post
    Linux can be just as fast: Extremely responsive system with GUI performance that rivals Windows XP.

    All you need is an older machine with a Radeon R200 card (Radeon 8500 ~ Radeon 9250) and this live CD:

    http://www.puppyisos.org/isos/2008-0...7-fglrx8.28.8/

    username: puppy passwd: linux

    Good old fglrx for R200 cards = the pinnacle of ATI's proprietary drivers for Linux

    You'll be amazed.
    Thanks Tuxdriver So, weak 2D is only drivers problem and we can have superb 2D acceleration without Gallium3D? (In theory )

    P.S. I have r500, but it won't be so smooth with this card?
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-16-2009 at 04:43 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Michael, thanks for the article.

    The figures are interesting, but I think that what concerns more Kolivas and many desktop users (among them, me) is the general responsiveness of the system.

    I would merrily swap some % of pure performance for a greater responsiveness.

    I'm asking: are those benchmarks you ran a good gauge for this?
    It's not an ironic question, I'm really wondering, not being an expert in that field

Posting Permissions

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