Talk:Completely Fair Scheduler

Computing Start‑class High‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Details

The article could use a basic explanation of how the algorithm actually works. -- Beland 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]