| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Con Kolivas returns with a new schedulerCon Kolivas returns with a new schedulerPosted Sep 1, 2009 17:51 UTC (Tue) by Velmont (subscriber, #46433)In reply to: Con Kolivas returns with a new scheduler by kerick Parent article: Con Kolivas returns with a new scheduler
Worthless? In the FAQ it seems pretty reasonable. Would be fun to try. I also used -ck kernels in the good old days For years we've been doing our workloads on linux to have more work than we had CPUs because we thought that the "jobservers" were limited in their ability to utilise the CPUs effectively (so we did make -j6 or more on a quad core machine for example). This scheduler proves that the jobservers weren't at fault at all, because make -j4 on a quad core machine with BFS is faster than *any* choice of job numbers on CFS.
(Log in to post comments)
Con Kolivas returns with a new scheduler Posted Sep 7, 2009 10:09 UTC (Mon) by jlokier (subscriber, #52227) [Link]
The real reason we used to use "make -j MORE_THAN_NR_CPUS" was to get useful work done when a process waits on I/O. Con's scheduler doesn't help with that: if gcc foo.c needs to read foo.c from disk, you must have more jobs than CPUs, or you have an idle CPU.
What's changed is nowadays most of us have enough RAM to keep the whole kernel source and object files in cache, so there's no I/O delay after the first compile of the day.
I'm surprised Con's scheduler compiles more quickly than CFS, and that has to be worth looking into.
|
|
||||||||||||