Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Kasper Sandberg <> | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:09:07 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 13:10 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 04:22 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Saturday 19 December 2009 18:36:03 Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > > Try this on a dualcore or quadcore system, or ofcourse just set the< > > > niceness accordingly... > > Oh well. This is getting too much for a normally very silent and flame fearing > > reader. Didnt *you* just tell others to shut up about using any tunables for > > any application? And that you dont need any tunables for BFS? oh and btw, the niceness is not really a tunable" > > That was an entirely different case, have you even been following the > thread? > > OFCOURSE you're going to see slowdowns on a UP system if you have a cpu > hog and then run something else, this is the only behavior possible, and > bfs handles it in a fair way. > > when i said we needed no tunables, that was for running a _SINGLE_ > application, and then measuring said applications performance. (where > BFS indeed does beat CFS by a quite large margin) > > and as for CFS, it SHOULD exhibit fair behavior anyway, isnt it called > "completely FAIR scheduler" ? or is that just the marketing name? > > > > > > > Andres > > -- > 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/
| |