Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754755AbZLTPNK (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:13:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753760AbZLTPNI (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:13:08 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:53864 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753654AbZLTPNH (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:13:07 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX194cJFalG94CDIKsWaXvdz+IKe/c7/nX+hjoLldsK EuefWtJCkP5AzN Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS From: Mike Galbraith To: Kasper Sandberg Cc: Andres Freund , 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 16:13:01 +0100 Message-Id: <1261321981.6105.60.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.67 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 522 Lines: 14 On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 13:10 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > and as for CFS, it SHOULD exhibit fair behavior anyway, isnt it called > "completely FAIR scheduler" ? or is that just the marketing name? Clue: CFS _did_ distribute CPU evenly. Ponder that for a moment. -Mike -- 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/