Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
       Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1261321981.6105.60.camel@marge.simson.net>
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>
	 <1261321981.6105.60.camel@marge.simson.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:51:16 +0100
Message-Id: <1261324276.7227.11.camel@marge.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 669
Lines: 19

On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 16:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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.

All done?

Do you think THAT may be why I thought Con might be interested?!?

	-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/