More fuel on the BFS vs. CFS fire(thread.gmane.org)
thread.gmane.org
More fuel on the BFS vs. CFS fire
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/889444
2 comments
It's not the first, there is also: http://lwn.net/Articles/351058/
But, I believe, that test suffers from one fatal flaw: Hyperthreading was enabled, and as far as I know BFS does not support hyperthreading. (Support means: know that that the two CPUs are really the same, rather than treat them as if they were two different physical CPUs.)
But, I believe, that test suffers from one fatal flaw: Hyperthreading was enabled, and as far as I know BFS does not support hyperthreading. (Support means: know that that the two CPUs are really the same, rather than treat them as if they were two different physical CPUs.)
Ah yeah - sorry - I'm just deliberately ignoring the "official" benchmarks from Ingo and Con... At least until one of them publishes a benchmark that shows their own solution loses in some scenario ;)
Background:
This is about the choice of CPU scheduler in the linux kernel.
CFS: Completely Fair Scheduling, current default.
BFS: Brain Fuck Scheduler, written by the infamous Con Kolivas, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=799147
This is about the choice of CPU scheduler in the linux kernel.
CFS: Completely Fair Scheduling, current default.
BFS: Brain Fuck Scheduler, written by the infamous Con Kolivas, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=799147
Is that name serious..?
EDIT: I know a language named similar but that's more like a for-fun project, not a serious one to the extent of replacing existing solutions
EDIT: I know a language named similar but that's more like a for-fun project, not a serious one to the extent of replacing existing solutions
Edit: And that's what happened (more or less) - in the first response:
2.6.31-bfs221-smp - 408.38 fps
2.6.32-tip-smp NO_NEXT_BUDDY NO_LB_BIAS - 418.07 fps