Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:54 UTC, submitted by Anonumous
Some of the concerns expressed about CFS were reports that it might not handle 3D games as well as the SD scheduler. In a recent thread, Ingo Molnar noted, "people are regularly testing 3D smoothness, and they find CFS good enough and that matches my experience as well (as limited as it may be). In general my impression is that CFS and SD are roughly on par when it comes to 3D smoothness." He noted that all known regressions were reported against earlier versions of CFS that had long since been fixed, and that he was very interested in any new reports of regressions against the current version of the code, "there are no open 3D related regressions for CFS at the moment." Ingo then offered benchmarks illustrating the improved 3D performance of CFS, with numbers showing it to perform as well and in some cases considerably better than the SD scheduler.
Thread beginning with comment 260140
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-11-05
If you read the full thread (check out http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel ) you will see Ingo say that he did benchmarks in wine because wine is more complex. It requires a server / client design with stresses a scheduler (like CFS or SD) harder.