Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
what happened to pds-mq scheduler

#1
hi, i am a happy deepin user, somehow it feels more responsive that the default fedora, arch or suse tumbleweed stock kernels, i am curently testing ck (muqss) and pf (pds-mq) kernels and i don't feel any improvement, in fact i have seen an increment  of cpu usage from aroud 70 to 80/95 percent using muqss or pds-mq, i have 4 pentium3700M (CPU: Intel Pentium N3710 (4) @ 2.560GHz)  in dat to day  use.
before reinstall default 4.15-deepin kernel a friend of mine recommended me to try with xanmod kernel. i installed it todat but to my surprise is using defaul cfs kernel scheduler, what  does the line 

"PCIe ACS Override, PDS-mq, Aufs, Ureadahead and GCC graysky's patchset available"

that are not compiles by default into xanmos kernel?
I dont mean to be rude but if it so, i don't see any benefit from deepin default other that bfq io scheduler. May be my friend tried an old xanmod release that do applied those patches, or xanmod somehow has found the magical way to get extraordinary results from cfs and the other patches? 
thanks.
Reply

#2
Besides the CFS being more mature (stability) and better balance latencies (perf x latency) than PDS and MuQSS. You can not consider just one component as a rule for overall performance. There are hundreds of shapes and other means. The standard CFS parameters already have the best efficiency for any workload. After 3 years, I got the most significant optimizations in the cpu core scheduler, in the rcu tree, i/o block layer, and so on

Simplifying, see the list of optimization commits. https://github.com/xanmod/linux/commits/...824a39f314

I keep the PDS patch present (disabled) for anyone who wants to make their own compilations.
Reply

#3
Thanks Alexander, that is what i questioned about the xanmod way, these are the optimizations that make xanmode different to the rest of the kernels, with no need to use any other custom kernel schedulers, just optimized cfs, right?.
Reply

#4
Everything is relative... Currently, the 5.1 series now uses the successor to pds, bmq.
Reply



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)