3 ms·

This paper is from 2016. Anyone know the status of this now?

• pokler 3y ago
  The Linux kernel received a new scheduler not too long ago (https://lwn.net/Articles/925371/ https://lwn.net/Articles/925371/), so I'm not sure how relevant the critiques about CFS are.
  • whoisthemachine 3y ago
    Looks great! According to one article, those changes just hit shore last month in kernel 6.6, so it's likely not in most os distributions yet. https://tuxcare.com/blog/linux-kernel-6-6-is-here-find-out-whats-new/#:~:text=Processor%20Updates,efficiency%2C%20especially%20for%20AMD%20processors https://tuxcare.com/blog/linux-kernel-6-6-is-here-find-out-w....
    • mixmastamyk 3y ago
      In fedora 38 and 39, just update.
    • mmwelt 3y ago
      FWIW, Pop OS just updated to the 6.6 kernel.
      • fmajid 3y ago
        As did Alpine in 3.19
      • whoisthemachine 3y ago
        Interesting! I've used Linux Mint for the last 5+ years (and am using the Xanmod kernel, which is on 6.6), but have always been Pop OS curious. This increases my curiosity, I may have to give it a go on my laptop. https://xanmod.org/ https://xanmod.org/
• nickelpro 3y ago
  It was discussed at the time, and the consensus was the patches were unusuable, the testing methodology dubious, and the machine configuration rare. https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/23/135 https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/23/135
  • Agingcoder 3y ago
    This paper caused me to start doubting the Linux scheduler on medium sized boxes ( 36 physical cores in 2016 ) and helped me find an annoying bug in the rhel 7 kernel which prevented some processes from being scheduled at all in some cases( it was an issue with Numa load balancing if I remember well). Note my bug was most likely unrelated to the paper, but it marked in my mind a specific class of bugs as possible. So it helped me at least :-)