Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Oct 2007 07:57 UTC, submitted by JohnnyUtah
The Completely Fair Scheduler was merged for the 2.6.23 kernel. One CFS feature which did not get in, though, was the group scheduling facility. Group scheduling makes the CFS fairness algorithm operate in a hierarchical fashion: processes are divided into groups, and, within each group, processes are scheduled fairly against one another. At the higher level, each group as a whole is given a fair share of the processor. The grouping of processes is done in user space in a highly flexible manner; the control groups (formerly 'process containers') mechanism allows a management daemon to classify processes according to almost any policy.
Permalink for comment 281095
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-07-11
> Just read it first before trolling around! Some bugs,
> nothing more, nothing less.
Well, I guess you could say the same about CFS then? That there are still some bugs and once they get fixed it'll perform better.
> Dear Linux zealot, the benchmarks were even in
> discussion on the LKML and lead to some positive
> development (your nice patches for CFS).
Not quite true. Someone posted Jeff's latest results on LKML (Jeff was using 2.6.23) and then Ingo redid the benchmark with the latest development code for CFS and the results were better.
> Yeah maybe in your very dreams.
Please take a look at this:
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0 Preview.pdf
As you can see at page 11, FreeBSD 5.5 didn't scale at all, version 6.2 did a little better, but only for very few threads. 6.2 is still the stable version and Jeff published his first benchmarks of the new ULE scheduler in the beginning of 2007.
> Linux is working with hype and error permissiveness, > *BSD is working with quality and reliability in mind.
Yeah right... the old urban legends again. Linux is all crap and BSD is pure quality!
> Btw. for all of these benchmarks always the latest
> patches were used
You are wrong again. Jeff was using 2.6.23 and testing it against bleeding-edge FreeBSD, even though Ingo's development branch of CFS had lot's of improvements.