[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:0.022 / U:137.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site