Re: [ck] Re: kernel scedular

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 10 Juni 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> 
> Hi Linus!
> 
> 
>>Ehh.. It was tested extensively by lots of people. It was in -mm for a
>>while, and yes, there have been tons of people testing both. I've
>>followed it, and it seems fair to say that yes, Ingo took a lot of
>>ideas from SD, but CFS seems to have gotten more people involved, and
>>we had several people compare the two, and CFS was generally better.
> 
> 
> Well actually I did not see that general result yet. I have seen quite 
> some testings and quite some reports on the ck patch mailinglist also 
> where in favor of SD. If it matters I will collect those, but I think 
> Ingo already did include most of them in his summary.

I'd just like to say that last time I tested CFS it was very slow
on context switching. I don't know if this has been improved, but I
think it should be.

I'm not talking about context switching with heaps of tasks, but
about lmbench 2-task ping pongs and such.

Also it used pretty small timeslices to achieve interactivity, which
didn't seem like a good idea. I wonder if that's been fixed?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.