[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>> Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of
>>>> replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a low
>>>> footprint scheduler.
>>> It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either way.
>>> To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want BFS, they
>>> wouldn't patch it in the first place.
>> BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for
>> specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use).
> Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline
> maintainers have already made it clear they do not.
Since your work is going in as a patch anyway, who is it that cares? The point
is that I have one source which I compile with multiple config files, rather
than multiple sources I get to patch with selected embellishments from -mm and
-next and other places.

It would be great if the system could boot and run on a doorknob scheduler long
enough to load a scheduling modules at boot time. But that's a second level gain
to having a single source and compiling the hell out of it.

Bill Davidsen <>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-20 05:49    [W:0.073 / U:3.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site