Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: A New BFS "Smoking" Scheduler For Linux 3.3

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,591

    Default A New BFS "Smoking" Scheduler For Linux 3.3

    Phoronix: A New BFS "Smoking" Scheduler For Linux 3.3

    Con Kolivas announced this weekend the release of an updated BFS scheduler for the recently-released Linux 3.3 kernel. The new BFS scheduler is at version 0.420 and is codenamed "Smoking", with "a fairly large architectural change" since earlier versions of this out-of-tree kernel scheduler...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA3Njg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    956

    Default

    Nice version number...one laid back mellow scheduler this version

    All kidding aside, this scheduler does work quite well IMO and here's to its continued improvement

  3. #3

    Default Where does this patch apply nowadays?

    The regular kernel can do 0.33ms latency now. Where would this patch be applicable currently?

    Peace.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    The regular kernel can do 0.33ms latency now. Where would this patch be applicable currently?
    My ass it can. BFS is still more responsive than CFS.

    Peace.
    War.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    My ass it can. BFS is still more responsive than CFS.


    War.
    Why is it that some people go online, and write really lame-ass responses. "war". LOL. In my mail it said "fucking war". You removed the "fucking". Dude the whole thing is really lame. Forget about "war". Forget about "more responsive". 0.33ms = feels like vintage hardware. And they are always working to push that down, because os-jitter = worse performance with several cpu`s, and that means low latency = good.

    If you ask me, Con seems to be wasting his time. If he is complaining it is taking too much of his time, he should just forget about it. Unless he has some personal quest for his dual core. Generally it is not a noticable gain for most, and I think that was who he had in mind, in the beginning.

    Take a break, Linux is there. Celebrate and have fun.

    Peace (to you).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    He has a quad core, not dual. And the improvements can be felt but also measured. You can find plenty of results and graphs.

    So no. He is not wasting his time. For a lot of people, Linux wouldn't be the same without CK's work.

    Btw, writing "peace" at the bottom of your posts does not make you look cool. Unless you're Jamaican. Otherwise you're just a poser.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Are we real?
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Why is it that some people go online, and write really lame-ass responses. "war". LOL. In my mail it said "fucking war". You removed the "fucking". Dude the whole thing is really lame.
    It is true, I also got the same text in my email.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    And your repulsive ignorance with "peace" etc, is inexpressibly stupid. Get educated, learn about some other cultures. And you will find it is a common greeting, and in groups far larger than jamaicans, rastafari, and hasish smoking.
    +1


    RealNC, do you feel cool if you write that? Get some peace, man.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    146

    Default worst case latency

    It seems to me that some people are not placing enough value on worst-case latency for user interactivity and responsiveness. Most of the benchmarks I have seen here measure throughput and average latency. When I am using my computer, the worst feeling is if it "freezes" for a few seconds, even if that only happens once an hour, it really bothers me. I would be willing to give up a lot of throughput (or tolerate higher average latency) if it can eliminate such freezes. I don't know that BFS can accomplish that (or linux realtime, or something else), but whether another scheduler could eliminate such freezes or not, I don't think the benchmarks being discussed do a good job of measuring this issue.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Yo, peace mah man. Me an' mah homies are chillin' an' readin' thah forums. Yo, check it out man, people are writin' "peace" cuz it makes 'em look cool.

    As for BFS, it's still better than CFS. I get XRUNS with JACK when running CFS that I do not get with BFS. So it's not a placebo, it's actually audible.

    Word. (/me crosses hands over my chest and makes the peace sign)
    Last edited by RealNC; 03-25-2012 at 06:15 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Yo, peace mah man. Me an' mah homies are chillin' an' readin' thah forums. Yo, check it out man, people are writin' "peace" cuz it makes 'em look cool.

    As for BFS, it's still better than CFS. I get XRUNS with JACK when running CFS that I do not get with BFS. So it's not a placebo, it's actually audible.

    Word. (/me crosses hands over my chest and makes the peace sign)
    No you`re just a retard.

Posting Permissions

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