[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0
On 26 March 2012 00:37, Mike Galbraith <> wrote:
> Yeah.  In all the interactivity testing I've ever done, it's really hard
> to not see what you expect and/or hope to see.  For normal desktop use,
> I don't see any real difference with BFS vs CFS unless I load test of
> course, and that can go either way, depending on the load.
> Example:
> 3.3.0-bfs vs 3.3.0-cfs - identical config
> Q6600 desktop box doing a measured interactivity test.
> time mplayer BigBuckBunny-DivXPlusHD.mkv, with massive_intr 8 as competition
> no bg load real    9m56.627s              1.000
> CFS        real    9m59.199s              1.004
> BFS        real    12m8.166s              1.220
> As you can see, neither scheduler can run that perfectly on my box, as
> the load needs a tad more than its fair share.  However, the Interactive
> Experience was far better in CFS in this case due to it being more fair.
> In BFS, the interactive tasks (mplayer/Xorg) could not get their fair
> share, causing interactivity to measurably suffer.

massive_intr runs a number of threads that each run for 8ms and then
sleep for 1ms. That means they are 89% cpu bound. Run 8 of them and
your CPU load is 88.8 * 8 = 7.1. So now you're testing a difficult
mplayer benchmark in the presence of a load of 7.1 on a CPU with 4
cores. I don't know how much CPU the playback of your particular video
is but I suspect it does require a fair amount of CPU based on the CPU
it got back in your test. I can virtually guarantee that the amount of
CPU BFS is giving to mplayer is proportional to how much CPU is left.
Ergo as far as I can see, BFS is likely being absolutely perfectly
fair. This sort of fairness equation has been already elucidated in
the pHD that I linked to in my original post and he has done a much
more thorough analysis than this kind of drive-by test that you're
doing and misinterpreting has already shown that BFS is fair to a

snip the rest

'top' snapshots are uninteresting because CFS and BFS report cpu time
completely differently and a single snapshot tells us nothing.

Snip uninteresting-to-desktop-user throughput benchmarks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-27 00:33    [W:0.143 / U:6.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site