linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:39:22 +0300
From:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for
 linux kernel 3.3.0

On 28/03/12 08:12, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 25.03.2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>
>> I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have
>> some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"?
>
> I guess it's a "feels faster", because it's the only thing that
> counts. Given that there is strong evidence that scheduler A is
> "faster, more interactive", whatever... than scheduler B, but a
> controlled trial shows a significantly better "feels faster"
> experience using scheduler B, I'm quite shure that people would choose
> scheduler B over A, and that's quite ok. It does what they expect it
> to do, despite evidence which documents the opposite.

CFS: ALSA XRUNs in JACK.
BFS: much less ALSA XRUNs in JACK

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/