Slashdot Mirror
CFQ In Linux Gets BFQ Characteristics
jones_supa writes: Paolo Valente from University of Modena has submitted a Linux kernel patchset which replaces CFQ (Completely Fair Queueing) I/O scheduler with the last version of BFQ (Budget Fair Queuing, a proportional-share scheduler). This patchset first brings CFQ back to its state at the time when BFQ was forked from CFQ. Paolo explains: "Basically, this reduces CFQ to its engine, by removing every heuristic and improvement that has nothing to do with any heuristic or improvement in BFQ, and every heuristic and improvement whose goal is achieved in a different way in BFQ. Then, the second part of the patchset starts by replacing CFQ's engine with BFQ's engine, and goes on by adding current BFQ improvements and extra heuristics." He provides a link to the thread in which it is agreed on this idea, and a direct link to the e-mail describing the steps.
And why are they going thorough the trouble of removing improvements from CFQ?
My guess is to establish a chain of authorship, so that that those things that BFQ shares with CFQ can be correctly attributed to the author of CFQ. Chain of authorship is very important to the Linux project. It dates back to the SCO lawsuit, which ends up being why Git has the --signoff option.
Why not just make an addition one named BFQ?
That might be the ultimate plan: duplicate CFQ, producing a second scheduler identical to CFQ, then apply the heuristic removal patch and the BFQ patch to "Copy of CFQ".
Sorry, but what it shows is that gnome terminal sucks.
I know it's slow. And the startup time is not the biggest problem. It has tabs, if you want to.
But let some text scroll fastly there and look at the cpu usage.
Then use urxvt and compare startup time (instant) and text scrolling (almost no additional cpu, the program producing the text dominates).
Thats the reason against gnome-terminal. When a low cpu program occupies a whole cpu core, because the terminal drawing the output sucks, youre doing it wrong.