

More fuel on the BFS vs. CFS fire - DarkShikari
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/889444

======
viraptor
"fuel"? It's the first (that I've seen) well described, reproducible test that
includes a howto for retesting in this debate... Whether someone improves BFS
(cpu jumping) or CFS (general performance) because of this post, we win.
Great!

Edit: And that's what happened (more or less) - in the first response:

2.6.31-bfs221-smp - 408.38 fps

2.6.32-tip-smp NO_NEXT_BUDDY NO_LB_BIAS - 418.07 fps

~~~
ars
It's not the first, there is also: <http://lwn.net/Articles/351058/>

But, I believe, that test suffers from one fatal flaw: Hyperthreading was
enabled, and as far as I know BFS does not support hyperthreading. (Support
means: know that that the two CPUs are really the same, rather than treat them
as if they were two different physical CPUs.)

~~~
viraptor
Ah yeah - sorry - I'm just deliberately ignoring the "official" benchmarks
from Ingo and Con... At least until one of them publishes a benchmark that
shows their own solution loses in some scenario ;)

------
ars
Background:

This is about the choice of CPU scheduler in the linux kernel.

CFS: Completely Fair Scheduling, current default.

BFS: Brain Fuck Scheduler, written by the infamous Con Kolivas, see
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=799147>

~~~
asyazwan
Is that name serious..?

EDIT: I know a language named similar but that's more like a for-fun project,
not a serious one to the extent of replacing existing solutions

