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

Nikos Chantziaras
2012-03-28T12:50:10Z

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