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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-15
Maybe you should clean up your mind first.
1. some heavy bugs in Linux, discovered thanks to these benchmarks
2. prober configuration from the beginning with the help of some Linux developers
3. even today CFS is sometimes inferior to the new FreeBSD scheduler
4. just a note: NetBSD current beats Linux too, it's no miracle just proper software engineering
>where when actually done properly, linux beat the living crap out of bsd 
Thanks god the members of LKML aren't such zealots :-)
Member since:2006-03-23
no, the case i am remembering was clearly a bug in the database software, which actually was fixed in a later release.
so YOU should clear YOUR mind..
and btw, CFS may not provide as high throughput, but that comes at the price of increase interactivity. and while CFS is not as good as it could be(as it havent gotten as good as SD), its still alot better interactivity wise than what we had before.
Member since:2007-07-11
> 1. some heavy bugs in Linux, discovered thanks to
> these benchmarks
Yes, that's true.
> 2. prober configuration from the beginning with the
> help of some Linux developers
Half true. In his first benchmark Jeff was using and older MySQL version on Linux and a newer one on FreeBSD. He also wasn't using the latest development version of Linux, only the stable releases.
> 3. even today CFS is sometimes inferior to the new
> FreeBSD scheduler
That true and I didn't deny that. I only said that the latest version of CFS got some improvements.
> 4. just a note: NetBSD current beats Linux too, it's > no miracle just proper software engineering
Link please? I read @tech-kern, but they where using Linux 2.6.21 and an older glibc version (which had the malloc bug).
> Thanks god the members of LKML aren't such zealots
Well, everything I said was that the latest version of CFS has some improvements (which is true) and that FreeBSD 6.2 and 5.5 don't scale at all (also true). So who is the zealot? ;D
Member since:
2006-03-23
i also seem to remember not too long ago some freebsd benchmarks where the freebsd dude was deliberately using some software versions that had bugs when compiled on linux, and various misconfigurations, where when actually done properly, linux beat the living crap out of bsd