The v2 Rotary Interactivity Favor Scheduler

[Naib]

3.3.5 with RIFS

[3766691]

The lagging problem was gone after reboot and switching back to my backup kernel

If you have time please try to boot with 3.3.x-RIFS and It is more easy for.me to figure out what prpblems RIFS has.

[3766691]

3.3.5 with RIFS

Thanks. Does it handle imteractivity better than BFS with high workload ?For example is Firefox smooth even under high workload eg.make -j128 or even crazier like make -j512?

[3766691]

3.3.5 with RIFS

Thanks. Does it handle imteractivity better than BFS with high workload ?For example is Firefox smooth even under high workload eg.make -j128 or even crazier like make -j512?

my sucky Android duplicate my message

[elmariachi]

Where can we ask for support? I can't compile the kernel with this patch, must be doing something wrong (kind of new to the whole custom kernel scene)

[3766691]

Where can we ask for support? I can't compile the kernel with this patch, must be doing something wrong (kind of new to the whole custom kernel scene)

Oops.Could you send me your config.Also this patch is just availale for 3.3.x kernel right now

[elmariachi]

It was me I had conflicting patches. Applied to vanilla 3.3.5 worked. It seems snappier, but that can also be placebo, I'll have to test some more. I also notice the lag when switching between apps, but I guess being snappy everywhere all the time is kind of utopic, no?

Time to compile pacworld

[3766691]

It was me I had conflicting patches. Applied to vanilla 3.3.5 worked. It seems snappier, but that can also be placebo, I'll have to test some more. I also notice the lag when switching between apps, but I guess being snappy everywhere all the time is kind of utopic, no?

Time to compile pacworld

Thanks for giving comment. The reason why it performs snappier is because it don't use complex and unaccurate algorithum to give priority to interactive task.
I 'm going to try using the algorithum RIFS has used and EEVDF to priovide a more fairer scheduling. The switches between user-interactive task is smoother than BFS with high workload. It seems lag when switching to a cpu intensive task from interactive task. ;-)

[elmariachi]

Are you the main author of RIFS?
forgot to say: I'm using it with deadline, it seems to be faster than BFQ or CFQ. Noop and deadline are faster for me (normal hdd, non-sdd)

funny thing: governor set to performance, no dyn ticks, nothing to save energy on, and I get almost exactly the same temperature as with BFS with everything on "eco" mode... maybe it's not the scheduler, but it's funny

[3766691]

Are you the main author of RIFS?
forgot to say: I'm using it with deadline, it seems to be faster than BFQ or CFQ. Noop and deadline are faster for me (normal hdd, non-sdd)

Yes,

funny thing: governor set to performance, no dyn ticks, nothing to save energy on, and I get almost exactly the same temperature as with BFS with everything on "eco" mode... maybe it's not the scheduler, but it's funny

There are not much relationship between a CPU scheduler and the temperature.
Also, RIFS handles interactivity better than BFS with high workload. You can just try make -j128 and play your music or browse webpage with Firefox. According to my test result, 3.3.1 with BFS hanged my box with make -j512, and the music stopped for more than 1 minute, but with BFS it won't.