Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:50:03 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] |
| |
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like > > Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance > (in all meanings of the word). That's only logical.
I had a quick look at Ingo's code yesterday. Ingo is always smart to prepare a main dish (feature) with a nice sider (code cleanup) to Linus ;) And even this code does that pretty nicely. The deadline designs looks good, although I think the final "key" calculation code will end up quite different from what it looks now. I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint). About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course).
- Davide
- 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/
| |