Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jul 2006 17:09 UTC, submitted by IdaAshley
Linux "The Linux kernel continues to evolve, incorporating new technologies and gaining in reliability, scalability, and performance. One of the most important features of the 2.6 kernel is a scheduler implemented by Ingo Molnar. This scheduler is dynamic, supports load-balancing, and operates in constant time -- O(1). This article explores these attributes of the Linux 2.6 scheduler, and more."
Thread beginning with comment 140582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Improving, but still...
by smashIt on Thu 6th Jul 2006 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Improving, but still..."
Member since:

There is also the fact that Windows just plays a lot of shady tricks with scheduling to artificially boost response time. It gives the foreground window special priveleges just for being in front. These increase the feeling of responsiveness without actually making anything faster, but also make the system much less predictable under load.

I wouldn't call it shady tricks.
windows is a desktop os.
and as such, optimising for the active application is a valid methode. If you don't like it, just disable this feature.

Reply Parent Score: 3

rayiner Member since:

It is a shady trick, from a programming point of view. Just priority boosting the foreground process isn't a very precise optimization. It might make things smoother when things are going right, but it's the reason Windows grinds to a halt when the foreground process does something stupid. Today at work, Visual Studio went off the deep end while debugging an application, and the system went unresponsive for a minute or two before I could get to the task manager to shut it down. Linux or OS X never do that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:

Linux or OS X never do that.

Except for when a high priority thread goes into an infinite loop by mistake...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Improving, but still...
by jebb on Thu 6th Jul 2006 07:12 in reply to "RE[4]: Improving, but still..."
jebb Member since:

It's also the reason why moving to a hyperthreaded or SMP machine makes such a huge difference on windows boxes, in terms of UI responsiveness. The improvement felt on a 2.6 linux or OSX box is far less impressive...

Reply Parent Score: 1

Ronald Vos Member since:

Linux or OS X never do that.

I wish. When Gnome in SLED locked up because 2 different apps were accessing a dir with 3k files over USB1, and Gnome became totally unresponsive for a minute or 2, I thought: man, Linux' thread scheduler sucks ass.

But apparently that's X' fault.

Reply Parent Score: 1