Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 13:10 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 04:22 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 December 2009 18:36:03 Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > Try this on a dualcore or quadcore system, or ofcourse just set the<
> > > niceness accordingly...
> > Oh well. This is getting too much for a normally very silent and flame fearing 
> > reader. Didnt *you* just tell others to shut up about using any tunables for 
> > any application? And that you dont need any tunables for BFS?
oh and btw, the niceness is not really a tunable"
> 
> That was an entirely different case, have you even been following the
> thread?
> 
> OFCOURSE you're going to see slowdowns on a UP system if you have a cpu
> hog and then run something else, this is the only behavior possible, and
> bfs handles it in a fair way.
> 
> when i said we needed no tunables, that was for running a _SINGLE_
> application, and then measuring said applications performance. (where
> BFS indeed does beat CFS by a quite large margin)
> 
> and as for CFS, it SHOULD exhibit fair behavior anyway, isnt it called
> "completely FAIR scheduler" ? or is that just the marketing name?
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Andres
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/