Results 1 to 10 of 150

Thread: RIFS-ES Linux Kernel Scheduler Released

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    update:

    OMG - thank you so much Chen !

    you're da man


    kudos to you and Con



    in the past there have always been issues when using ZFS + 2 audio streams or other stuff (e.g. scrolling in the web and entering text)

    the result was that the computer effectively wasn't usable for anything else than running the backup job of ZFS and playing one audio track with hickups from time to time


    currently I'm running geek-sources 3.4.2 with ck-patchset ck2 for 3.4 kernel

    BFS 423 patched to 424 (is supposed to fix some i/o interactivity issues) and added your O(1) tweaks


    this is the best desktop kernel by far - since EVER


    having the data integrity features ZFS available and at the same time fully smooth desktop experience is full win-win in my books



    thanks again !


    now we only need to convince Con to include those (and/or additional upcoming) tweaks from you into BFS


    best of course would be to add BFS to mainline as an option to select for desktop users ...


    edit:

    ok, there's still the issue that HD videos (720p+) act slightly jerky but the sound in 99% is consistent

    so ZFSonLinux still needs some tweaking until it is fully suited for desktop/multimedia usage


    can't believe how much the CPU scheduler alone makes a difference in those things




    I'm using some additional CFQ tweaks - they also might help:



    source: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questi...system-caching
    BFS won't be adopted because Con is having argument with the mainline developer. Also, I have found a designing problem that BFS has, is the starvation of sleep task. They can't be scheduled as fair as the cpu-intensive task and as you said, will cause hickup. For example there are 6 task running and there nice value is 0. Five of them are while1 and the remain one is X. All of them should get 16.666% of cpu time. In fact X cannot get 16.666% of cpu time correctly.
    Chen
    Last edited by 3766691; 07-12-2012 at 09:52 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
  •