[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum ) que stio n
Con Kolivas <> wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > Nick Piggin <> wrote:
> >>
> >> However well tested your scheduler might be, it needs several
> >> orders of magnitude more testing ;) Maybe the best we can hope
> >> for is compile time selectable alternatives.
> >
> > At this stage in the kernel lifecycle, for something as fiddly as the CPU
> > scheduler we really should be 100% driven by problem reporting.
> >
> > If someone can identify a particular misbehaviour in the CPU scheduler then
> > they should put their editor away and work to produce a solid testcase.
> > Armed with that, we can then identify the source of the particular problem.
> >
> > It is at this point, and no earlier, that we can decide what an appropriate
> > solution is. We then balance the risk of that solution against the severity
> > of the problem which it solves and make a decision as to whether to proceed.
> >
> > Right now, the ratio of quality bug reporting to scheduler patching is
> > bizarrely small.
> Is "for fun" not reason enough?

Sure. "For 2.7" is a good reason, too.

> I'm still keeping an eye out for firm "behavioural" bug reports on 2.6 and
> would discuss or address them.

OK, thanks.

> Seriously the only reason I went down the rewrite path was to address
> complaints about the complexity of the current design. It was also an
> opportunity to start implementing some requested features. I certainly have
> never suggested it should even be considered for 2.6.

Yeah, I tend to think that the CPU scheduler is currently 90% good enough,
and does seem to have become rather opaque.

I wouldn't mind having a new "for fun" scheduler in -mm, except there's
ongoing futzing with the current one to be sorted out.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.032 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site