![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely > FairScheduler [CFS] > > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 05:40 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:29:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>> Yup, and progress _is_ happening now, quite rapidly. >> >> Progress as in progress on Ingo's scheduler. I still don't know how we'd >> decide when to replace the mainline scheduler or with what. >> >> I don't think we can say Ingo's is better than the alternatives, can we? > > No, that would require massive performance testing of all alternatives. > >> If there is some kind of bakeoff, then I'd like one of Con's designs to >> be involved, and mine, and Peter's... > > The trouble with a bakeoff is that it's pretty darn hard to get people > to test in the first place, and then comes weighting the subjective and > hard performance numbers. If they're close in numbers, do you go with > the one which starts the least flamewars or what? it's especially hard if the people doing the testing need to find the latest patch and apply it. even having a compile-time option to switch between them at least means that the testers can have confidence that the various patches haven't bitrotted. boot time options would be even better, but I understand from previous discussions I've watched that this is performance critical enough that the overhead of this would throw off the results. David Lang - 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: 2007-04-17 06:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||