![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).