Con Kolivas Returns, With a Desktop-Oriented Linux Scheduler

myvirtualid writes "Con Kolivas has done what he swore never to do: returned to the Linux kernel and written a new — and, according to him — waaay better scheduler for the desktop environment. In fact, BFS appears to outperform existing schedulers right up until one hits a 16-CPU machine, at which point he guesses performance would degrade somewhat. According to Kolivas, BFS 'was designed to be forward looking only, make the most of lower spec machines, and not scale to massive hardware. i.e. [sic] it is a desktop orientated scheduler, with extremely low latencies for excellent interactivity by design rather than 'calculated,' with rigid fairness, nice priority distribution and extreme scalability within normal load levels.'"

Comments

O SNAP!

[uwnav]

oh no he didn't! HE CAME BACK!?!

He's like the Brett Favre of linux kernel schedulers!

hmm.. wrong place to use football reference?
who am I kidding.. I don't watch football

i.e. vs e.g.

[Troed]

"i.e." should be used after a statement to explain it another way

Remove the [sic]

http://askville.amazon.com/define-correct-usage/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5300847

Re:i.e. vs e.g.

[myvirtualid]

Remove the [sic]

See my previous comment: Since the immediately preceding token was a period, the previous statement was contained in a completed sentence. Conventionally, this requires that the first character of the next statement be capitalized, hence the need to write either "hardware, i.e." or "hardware. I.e.". Either choice would have removed the need for the sic.

Re:i.e. vs e.g.

[quickOnTheUptake]

sic = 'thus' in the sense of "in this/that way"
[sic] = "I meant to write it as it appears; it's not a typo."
Interestingly 'sic' would commonly be used in Latin to answer a question affirmatively (i.e., to say 'yes'), meaning just "in that way" or "[it is] as you said". Thus the form 'si' that is found in Romance languages.

Re:great news

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Hey MORON, take a few seconds and try to think outside of your own use case."

I've thought of most use cases. Strangely, no amount of thinking of different use cases made any of the grossly incorrect statements made here suddenly true. No matter what case I consider, the damn kernel config tool(s) keep offering me a choice of which scheduler to select even though so many people have said it doesn't for example.

So to recap, you think facts suddenly change based on which use cases I am considering, and it's me that is the moron? I love it when the mentally challenged call me a moron. ROTFLMAO