Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

Ingo Molnar
2007-04-21T08:34:18Z

* Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:

> All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases
> they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time
> to time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought
> nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having
> stumbles under stupid loads.

nice! I hope CFSv4 kept that good tradition too ;)

> I have not tested:
> 1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc
> 2 - low memory machines
> 3 - uniprocessor systems
>
> I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone
> has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are
> talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out
> of their overloaded web server.

i tested heavily swapping systems. (make -j50 workloads easily trigger
that) I also tested UP systems and a handful of SMP systems. I have also
tested massive_intr.c which i believe is an indicator of how fairly CPU
time is distributed between partly sleeping partly running server
threads. But i very much agree that diverse feedback is sought and
welcome, both from those who are happy with the current scheduler and
those who are unhappy about it.

Ingo