The Linux kernel process scheduler, as you know it, has been completely ripped out and replaced with a completely new one called Completely Fair Scheduler. How fair it will be, remains to be seen. Here's what its original creator Ingo Molnar says: "80% Of CFS's design can be summed up in a single sentence: CFS basically models an 'ideal, precise multi-tasking CPU' on real hardware." Learn more about the new scheduler from the CFS design document.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-01
That argument was for RSDL v.31 when renicing X to -10 helped out Xorg a lot in gaining more CPU time for itself (to improve user experience under load).
Now realize that Ingo also now supports renicing X to -10. He even made a patch for the kernel to do it automatically (i'm current using that patch with CFSv19).
It's precisely that kind of doublespeak that got CK upset. me too. Since then renicing to -10 isn't required, but still recommended (more so for CFS than SD in their current versions).
I did actual benchmarks for each version of SD vs CFS under the same conditions. All priorities at default 0... and SD won.
Linus was simply complaining because more people were willing to give CFS a try and post benchmark results (mostly highlighting problems with fairness compared to SD), while SD benchmark results were much less publicized. Probably because numbers weren't needed, it simply felt "smoother".. CK did try calling for more people to post benchmarks, but by then SD was basically wrote off from getting into mainline.
Edited 2007-07-11 01:06
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
Linus was simply complaining because more people were willing to give CFS a try and post benchmark results (mostly highlighting problems with fairness compared to SD), while SD benchmark results were much less publicized. Probably because numbers weren't needed, it simply felt "smoother".. CK did try calling for more people to post benchmarks, but by then SD was basically wrote off from getting into mainline.
"""
That's... unconvincing.
I've not followed all of this closely. But the major thwarting factor that I have noted is the scenario where one process, which looks like a processor hogging server, does its very sensitive work on behalf of a very much interactive client. The premiere example being X.
Are you saying that after all this we are no closer to solving this problem? Renice X to -10 has been the "solution" to this particular problem for as long as I have been aware of it. Which means back in the 90's.
Excuse me for a moment while I throw myself onto my sword. ;-)
Member since:2006-03-23
you do not understand the circumstances of this, those people were complaining about the fairness, he wanted X to provide the responsiveness it requires like 50% cpu to do, while as much other stuff, getting their fair share of cpu, which simply leaves less for X.
totally fair, but not what he wanted, and not how default did.
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
Unfortunately CK got some cold treatment by Ingo and other Kernel developers (including Linus).
"""
Not to take sides. But do you mean this cold treatment?
http://lwn.net/Articles/226963/