Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754879AbZLTNJP (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:09:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754595AbZLTNJO (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:09:14 -0500 Received: from fom01.emnet.dk ([89.249.14.84]:53671 "EHLO fom01.emnet.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754576AbZLTNJN (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:09:13 -0500 X-AuditID: 59f90e54-b7bd7ae000001243-6e-4b2e21f75e48 Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS From: Kasper Sandberg To: Andres Freund Cc: Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , Jason Garrett-Glaser , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML Mailinglist , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <1261311050.14314.67.camel@localhost> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <1261195412.8240.153.camel@marge.simson.net> <1261244163.14314.62.camel@localhost> <200912200422.18314.andres@anarazel.de> <1261311050.14314.67.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:09:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1261314547.14314.69.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAxIa7B4SGuw4EhrsOQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1706 Lines: 40 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/ -- 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/