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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:28:53 +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 16:53, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 28.03.2012, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>> CFS: ALSA XRUNs in JACK.
>> BFS: much less ALSA XRUNs in JACK
>
> BFS runs on all of my machines, and I know why. But that's not the
> point here. Why do people not accept and learn from each other? I'm
> quite shure that both CFS and BFS has good and bad things, why not
> take the best from both of them and improve it further?

I totally agree.  What ticks me off is people who claim that using BFS 
means you must be schizophrenic, even though some of them posted 
numbers.  Even on servers, BFS helped people.  For example, a server 
running mainline was behaving badly until it was switched to BFS.  The 
difference was quite impressive:

http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2011/08/phoronix-revisits-bfs.html

But still, many people decide to keep the "you're imagining it" 
attitude, as if they're preparing flame-bait.

--
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/