You've posted a config for a 2.6.39 generic kernel;
Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated
This generic kernel would not perform as well as the same kernel using the BFS patch set (not on either of my Core2duo's, not on my AMD Phenom II 965 x4, and i doubt it would on my i7 ~ although that machine is newer, and i haven't/won't test it). 2.6.39 was just before linux-rt-3.0 came out. For the entire time between 2.6.33-rt and 3.0.1-rt -> i was using BFS kernels, as i had some hardware that didn't play nice with 2.6.33-rt - and subsequently ended up using BFS on all my systems, because it worked noticably betterthan CFS on the same kernel, during that period. On all machines (using 2.6.39, when it came out) BFS ran smoother / more stable & reliably for proaudio then CFS, and that's with using the 'threaded irq' boot parameter, that had been merged into mainline 2.6.39, from the -rt patches ... I tested this quite a bit at the time.
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux/x86_64 2.6.39 Kernel Configuration
# Sat May 21 00:45:30 2011
I currently use RT-kernels, but BFS is definitely a great alternative to CFS for certain workloads. I would likely be using it right now, if RT wasn't an option, or if I thought it was overkill for my usage.
To say, Con is wasting his time - as you've said before, is silly. Lots of people have been using BFS for years, in my own experiences, it was great and in situations where i was getting XRUNS with CFS (on any kernel 2.6.33+) - with BFS, they didn't exist (on several machines). I think both CFS and BFS have value, and it's healthy to have them both around.
my 2 cents