Will CFS make a noticable difference?

lenni · 2007-10-11 10:22:19

Just wanted to know if the new Completely Fair Scheduler that's in the just released 2.6.23 kernel will really make a noticeable difference for desktop users.

Has anyone got experiences to share?

foxbunny · 2007-10-11 10:47:38

I have used both CK SD scheduler, and CFS. SD was slightly faster and for small details like loading icons into KDE (or GNOME) menu, it did much better than CFS. However, I haven't tweaked the defaults for CFS so I don't know if CFS can be made to perform better. Anyway, both schedulers are way better than what Linux used to offer.

As a side note, the 2.6.23-MM was a bit unstable on my PC so I didn't use it for long.

Gullible Jones · 2007-10-11 21:39:33

Yeah... Flash videos stutter much more and much more often when rendering web pages at the same time. System feels more responsive otherwise though, and I don't doubt that part of the problem is that Flashplugin is doing something stupid.

skottish · 2007-10-11 22:27:45

As I mentioned in another thread, my first Blender tests seem to show that it renders images around 2.5% faster than with the 2.6.22-ck kernel. While not exactly 'desktop' usage, it does make a difference. I also noticed a speed up in web page rendering after I upgraded, but that may be unrelated.

Last edited by skottish (2007-10-11 22:29:21)

foxbunny · 2007-10-12 03:52:20

Apart from the CFS, the changelog mentions a host of other changes, so, yeah, overall, the new kernel is supposed to be faster (if not more responsive) than the 2.6.22-ck kernel.

stylopath · 2007-10-12 08:42:54

When is the 2.6.23 supposed to hit the repos ?

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-12 09:12:00

2.6.23-2 is currently in testing, so as soon as all bugs are resolved it will be moved to current.

cybe-arch · 2007-10-12 09:34:26

You mean "core", Ramses de Norre

stylopath · 2007-10-12 10:08:29

Thanks! Since i had various problems with the "new" xorg from testing i disabled the testing repo (i prefer it stable ) so i didn't notice that.
Another time i see that Arch is really fast when it comes to new packages

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-12 10:15:00

Old habits die slowly

cybe-arch wrote:

You mean "core", Ramses de Norre

cybe-arch · 2007-10-12 11:12:30

I've been looking around, but can't find it.
Where can i follow package status of 2.6.23-2 and registered bugs?

Is the info in http://bugs.archlinux.org all there is?

Last edited by cybe-arch (2007-10-12 11:15:41)

shining · 2007-10-12 11:39:50

cybe-arch wrote:

I've been looking around, but can't find it.
Where can i follow package status of 2.6.23-2 and registered bugs?
Is the info in http://bugs.archlinux.org all there is?

Yep, there is mostly the bug tracker, but also the arch-dev-public ML :
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev … 02133.html

dhave · 2007-10-25 00:20:27

Does CFS need to be enabled as a kernel option (which I haven't found yet), or is it the default scheduler with 2.6.23? Thanks.

Later edit: From a bit of googling, I'm gather that there's just one process scheduler, and CFS is the new default. If anyone wants to confirm that, I'd be grateful.

Last edited by dhave (2007-10-25 00:24:01)

lucke · 2007-10-25 00:23:26

It is the default and the only scheduler in .23.

dhave · 2007-10-25 00:24:29

lucke wrote:

It is the default and the only scheduler in .23.

Thanks, lucke.

gummibaerchen · 2007-10-25 08:42:56

foxbunny wrote:

I have used both CK SD scheduler, and CFS. SD was slightly faster and for small details like loading icons into KDE (or GNOME) menu, it did much better than CFS.

Hmm, I can't say sure when it started but recently the creation of thumbnails on my Desktop (GNOME) takes _very_ long.

I have to mouse-over the icons, and then count up to five or so, 'till I can see them.

Could that be an issue with CFS?

.:B:. · 2007-10-25 10:39:13

Don't think so. Over all, CFS feels a lot smoother than 2.6.22.x.

mic64 · 2007-10-25 16:49:06

HI

I really can't see any difference between .22 and .23.
Under high CPU Load system feels still very slow and unresponsive.

Last edited by mic64 (2007-10-25 16:49:40)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-10-11 10:22:19

Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#2 2007-10-11 10:47:38

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#3 2007-10-11 21:39:33

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#4 2007-10-11 22:27:45

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#5 2007-10-12 03:52:20

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#6 2007-10-12 08:42:54

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#7 2007-10-12 09:12:00

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#8 2007-10-12 09:34:26

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#9 2007-10-12 10:08:29

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#10 2007-10-12 10:15:00

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#11 2007-10-12 11:12:30

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#12 2007-10-12 11:39:50

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#13 2007-10-25 00:20:27

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#14 2007-10-25 00:23:26

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#15 2007-10-25 00:24:29

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#16 2007-10-25 08:42:56

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#17 2007-10-25 10:39:13

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

#18 2007-10-25 16:49:06

Re: Will CFS make a noticable difference?

Board footer