Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0

Mike Galbraith
2012-03-28T16:44:53Z

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 28/03/12 08:12, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On 25.03.2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have
> >> some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"?
> >
> > I guess it's a "feels faster", because it's the only thing that
> > counts. Given that there is strong evidence that scheduler A is
> > "faster, more interactive", whatever... than scheduler B, but a
> > controlled trial shows a significantly better "feels faster"
> > experience using scheduler B, I'm quite shure that people would choose
> > scheduler B over A, and that's quite ok. It does what they expect it
> > to do, despite evidence which documents the opposite.
>
> CFS: ALSA XRUNs in JACK.
> BFS: much less ALSA XRUNs in JACK

Something like that could be interesting to look into. Do you have a
setup and recipe for inducing these xruns I can try? I don't have any
audio problems of my own to fiddle with, but then the few apps I use
buffer a lot, so I wouldn't.

-Mike