Talk:Completely Fair Scheduler

Computing: Software / CompSci Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Linux High‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

O(1) vs. O(log n) performance

I guess the O(log n) CFS was introduced to the Linux kernel for performance improvements compared to the older O(1) scheduler, the computational resource compared being number of clock cycles/time. Yet, there should be a minimum number of processes (n) for which the performance of the O(log n) scheduler starts getting worse compared to a rather high-overhead, but still constant scheduler. Maybe this is for currently pathological examples, like thousands of processes. Can anyone say a few words about this? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main reason for the new scheduler was not "performance" (e.g. scheduler overhead), but fairness. When CFS was first merged to mainline, it was actually slower than the O(1) scheduler even at low loads. However, compared to everything else that needs doing, scheduler overhead is usually insignificant. CFS has also been optimized since then, so it's possible that it's faster than the old scheduler now. But I don't know of any precise measurements of this. -- intgr [talk] 15:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting BFS edit ('RV wrong eid)')

Sorry for the terrible commit message, accidentally pressed enter while still typing it. Meant to say: CFS was not inspired by BFS, nor could it have been -- BFS was begun over 2 years after CFS (August 2009 vs April 2007). As Molnár's email says, it was inspired by Kolivas's Staircase Deadline scheduler. See https://lwn.net/Articles/230574/. -- simxp (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert controversy section

The controversy section is actually very useful to understand why this article is relevant anyway. I see that it was removed by this change:

(cur | prev) 08:33, 10 May 2015‎ 96.57.23.82 (talk)‎ . . (10,386 bytes) (-1,771)‎ . . (The section serves no purpose to understanding CFS. Maybe it should be in someones bio pages.) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

I would dare to say that CFS has "relevance" because of the controversy between the Linux developers, a discussion that Linus Torvalds seems to have lost (see https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ever-won-an-argument-with-Linus-Torvalds).