Ingo Molnar wrote:
( Lets be cautious though: the jury is still out whether people actually
like this more than the current approach. While CFS feedback looks
promising after a whopping 3 days of it being released [ ;-) ], the
test coverage of all 'fairness centric' schedulers, even considering
years of availability is less than 1% i'm afraid, and that < 1% was
mostly self-selecting. )
All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases
they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time to
time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought
nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having stumbles
under stupid loads.
I have not tested:
1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc
2 - low memory machines
3 - uniprocessor systems
I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone
has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are
talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out of
their overloaded web server.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
