Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: Question about fair schedulers | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:21 -0400 |
| |
Alberto Gonzalez wrote: > On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote: >> Alberto, >> >> If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it >> with Ingo's scheduler: CFS. >> >> You may be pleasantly surprised. > > Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :) > > However, I'd also need to change all my applications to set them with the > right priority to see the good results, so I think I might just wait until it > lands in mainline.
In general not the case. I generally don't diddle my priorities, there's rarely a need. > > Just to check if I understood everything correctly: > > The mainline scheduler tries to be smart and guess the priority of each task, > and while it mostly hits the nail right in the head, sometimes it hits you > right in the thumb. > > Fair schedulers, on the contrary, forget about trying to be smart and just > care about being fair, leaving the priority settings to where they belong: > applications. > > Is this more or less correct?
Incomplete. The CFS scheduler seems to do better with latency, so you may get less CPU to a process but it doesn't wind up waiting a long time to get a fair share. So it "feels better" without micro tuning.
Face it, if you have more jobs than CPU no scheduler is going to make you really happy. > > Alberto. >
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
- 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/
| |