![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 12:16 +1100, Peter Williams wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > >>Not many comments came back, zero actually. > >> > > > > > > That's because everyone's terribly busy chasing down those final bugs so we > > get a really great 2.6.16 release (heh, I kill me). > > > > I'm a bit reluctant to add changes like this until we get the smpnice stuff > > settled down and validated. I guess that means once Ken's run all his > > performance tests across it. > > > > Of course, if Ken does his testing with just mainline+smpnice then any > > coupling becomes less of a problem. But I would like to see some feedback > > from the other sched developers first. > > Personally, I'd rather see PlugSched merged in and this patch be used to > create a new scheduler inside PlugSched. But I'm biased :-) > > As I see it, the problem that this patch is addressing is caused by the > fact that the current scheduler is overly complicated. This patch just > makes it more complicated. What's complicated about the scheduler? I see simple/elegant when I look in there. Interaction with the user is complex, but interactive feel is a nebulous thing not restricted to this scheduler. I really don't think this patch adds complexity, quite the opposite actually. It just does a small bit of tweaking to the scheduler's weak spot, and adds a dirt simple barrier against starvation. IMO, this scheduler is not only quite simple, it's one weakness is generally wonderful for throughput. It's just that it's sometimes a bit _too_ wonderful ;-) -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-02-25 03:18 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||