[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
    > 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).

    To be clear, I'm not saying O(logN) itself is a big problem. Type

    plot [10:100] x with lines, log(x) with lines, 1 with lines

    into gnuplot. I was just trying to point out that we need to evalute
    things. Considering how long we've had this scheduler with its known
    deficiencies, let's pick a new one wisely.
    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: 2007-04-17 09:15    [W:0.020 / U:12.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site