10
Haxk20
9d

CFS in Linux is the most utter garbage i ever saw. Every fucking other CPU scheduler beats the living shit out of it.
I cant wait for the fucking day it will get replaced by BMQ or MuQSS or just any other modern CPU scheduler.
Tested few games with them.
CFS: 45fps
BMQ: 55-60 fps
This is average of all the games i tried and this is just fucking crazy. We are loosing 5-15 fps in most cases due to fucking CFS.
Sad thing is that BMQ is only on 5.3 kernel sadly and there isnt linux-next version. But im Haxk20. I know C.
So im totally not already fixing the BMQ patch to be compatible with linux-next (TOTALLY NOT).
Next rant coming surely in few hours with big failure or well success

Comments
  • 0
    Games i tested on Ryzen 5 2500U.

    Metro Exodus.

    The Outer Worlds.

    Dying Light (Native and also proton)

    Rise of the tomb raider.
  • 0
    Had issues with Intel's pstate driver not accepting Overclocks on unlocked CPUs.

    But I assume that is something else?
    What does CFS stand for?
    Through of a typo ZFS first.
  • 1
    @RageBone CFS stands for Completely Fair Scheduler LOOOOOOL
  • 2
    Linux is primarily targeted for servers, not desktop. That reflects in the scheduler of course. Things that make sense on desktop can be a denial of service problem on server. That's why the Linux scheduler is as it is, and not because it sucks.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop Fair point but that doesn't mean that they should do this. Linus very well knows that we use Linux on desktops too. So why not add a desktop scheduler ? Its simple as that.
  • 0
    @Haxk20 Because there's no serious money involved in desktop Linux, unlike servers. No money to pay for serious development, that is.

    The vast majority of kernel devs are paid by corporations with business interest. E.g. Intel wants to sell x86 server hardware, so Linux must run well, so they pay devs. The customers pay indirectly for Linux when purchasing the hardware.

    There's nothing comparable for desktop Linux.
  • 0
    Linux has multiple schedulers....

    And schedulers are hard.

    CFS has Bern around 2.6...

    And it's design was to be AS easy as possible, so it is no wonder that a ressource hungry game doesn't perform well...

    Linux is about choice. And yes. Mit and other schedulers are well better suited for desktop.
  • 0
    And to none ones suprise its pain to patch BMQ when you patch it properly but some stuff is just not implemented in it and thus it fails to build on linux-next. But hey it was fun. But damn i wish we really had some scheduler that i could use on linux-next like MuQSS cause dang.
  • 1
    Do note that a scheduler's job isn't *just* to ensure the foreground app has high performance but also to ensure the system stays usable while CPU-intensive tasks may be going on in the background (hence the "fair"). I'm not gonna say CFS is necessarily the best (because it's definitely not), but it's hardly "garbage".
  • 2
    @refi64 I remember back in the day of singlecore CPUs, Windows gave high priority to the foreground task. I learnt this when I had some lengthy computation in the background and wanted to play Minesweeper until it was done - only that Minesweeper as foreground task got nearly all the CPU time...
Add Comment