Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: There's A New Linux CPU Scheduler Based Upon BFS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,099

    Default There's A New Linux CPU Scheduler Based Upon BFS

    Phoronix: There's A New Linux CPU Scheduler Based Upon BFS

    A new CPU scheduler for the Linux kernel was announced on Saturday. This new scheduler is based upon the controversial "Brain Fuck Scheduler" scheduler but attempts to support multiple run-queues for better CPU scaling...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1MzY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    293

    Default

    i really don't get the fuzz about BFS. at best it performes as well as CFS. the only disadvantage of cfs is that you need to configure it properly for some specific hardware (like smartphones etc.).

    we'll see how well this new one will evolve.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    i really don't get the fuzz about BFS. at best it performes as well as CFS. the only disadvantage of cfs is that you need to configure it properly for some specific hardware (like smartphones etc.).

    we'll see how well this new one will evolve.
    Supposedly BFS provides lower latances and better responsiveness on the desktop. On the server or where you don't care so much about latency CFS wins without a contest.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    i really don't get the fuzz about BFS. at best it performes as well as CFS. the only disadvantage of cfs is that you need to configure it properly for some specific hardware (like smartphones etc.).
    That's not entirely true. it really depends on what you mean by 'performs as good as..".

    For example, I used BFS for about 2 years and it definitely had some advantages over CFS (on several machines), for my workloads (some of which, CFS could not keep up with using the exact same kernels). Particularly, low-latency With BFS, i could simply use schedtool to apply SCHED_ISO to jackd (X and other app which needed it) and have zero xruns. I could not get similar results with CFS, unless running an RT kernel. (or possibly doing a whole lot of tinkering, which at the time i had done and still didn't yield _as_good_ of results as BFS).

    I think BFS has it's advantages for some. These days though, i am using CFS (because i use realtime kernels).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Don't know about BFS but CFS is total crap on desktop. Not even on Windows will your DE freeze while copying large files :\.

    deadline scheduler ftw.

Posting Permissions

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