[mochomocha]

Where can I find benchmarks of EEVDF vs CFS that were 1) not run by Zijlstra and 2) not synthetic? ie AB tested on a large fleet of computers running heterogeneous processes.

I have nothing against the EEVDF algorithm itself (in fact I like it) and I dislike CFS very much. But I dislike the current development process of the Linux scheduler even more. Proper quantitative benchmarks of CPU schedulers are missing, which is why CFS ended in the sad state it did, where hundreds of patches were submitted to fix random edge cases over the years. What makes you confident that the initial EEVDF Linux implementation won't suffer the same fate, given that the development process hasn't changed (single kernel dev implementing it and running micro benchmarks)?

[jorvi]

I mean, I only know of the test at the time of the 6.4RC: https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2305210-NE-2305205NE89

An increase in performance of 10-30% across "real" workloads. Just for changing one line (well, two lines including disabling p-state drivers)? I'll take it.

I would say its not a strange position to assume it has been improved further since then.

What would be interesting although niche is checking how iGPU's perform alongside it. I know that on Intel, "thermald" lowers iGPU performance because it improves CPU utilization and thus leaves less mW for the iGPU. Perhaps something similar will happen with EEVDF.