The MuQSS CPU scheduler

Posted Apr 20, 2017 18:34 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566)
Parent article: The MuQSS CPU scheduler

>it is hard to quantify "smoothness" and "responsiveness" and turn them into an automated benchmark
That's true, it's a pain to quantify things like microstutter in multimedia - you need extra hardware to measure that. MuQSS doesn't make Linux magically perform like BeOS all the time.

But my favourite number to bring up is throughput: I used to run Folding@Home (entirely CPU-bound, MPI-heavy, scientific number-crunching), and took note of every little tweak available at the time. Transparent huge pages was something like 2-3% speedup. Going from CFS to BFS was 25%.

The MuQSS CPU scheduler

Posted Apr 21, 2017 5:08 UTC (Fri) by Otus (subscriber, #67685) [Link]

>> it is hard to quantify "smoothness" and "responsiveness" and turn them into an automated benchmark
> That's true, it's a pain to quantify things like microstutter in multimedia - you need extra hardware to measure that.

Oughtn't it be measurable using something similar to the frame-time analysis they nowadays do for game benchmarking?

The MuQSS CPU scheduler

Posted Apr 21, 2017 13:31 UTC (Fri) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (1 responses)

If you can actually measure 25% speedup from CFS to BFS on a repeatable benchmark, I'm sure the CFS people would love to take a bug report. Anything objective and quantifiable is great news.

The MuQSS CPU scheduler

Posted Apr 21, 2017 17:39 UTC (Fri) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

I believe this paper had a similar number: http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~sasha/papers/eurosys16-final29.pdf

That's a bit more thorough than any bug report I could ever write.