Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:48:32 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum ) que stio n |
| |
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > Andrew Morton writes: > > > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> > >> However well tested your scheduler might be, it needs several > >> orders of magnitude more testing ;) Maybe the best we can hope > >> for is compile time selectable alternatives. > > > > At this stage in the kernel lifecycle, for something as fiddly as the CPU > > scheduler we really should be 100% driven by problem reporting. > > > > If someone can identify a particular misbehaviour in the CPU scheduler then > > they should put their editor away and work to produce a solid testcase. > > Armed with that, we can then identify the source of the particular problem. > > > > It is at this point, and no earlier, that we can decide what an appropriate > > solution is. We then balance the risk of that solution against the severity > > of the problem which it solves and make a decision as to whether to proceed. > > > > Right now, the ratio of quality bug reporting to scheduler patching is > > bizarrely small. > > Is "for fun" not reason enough?
Sure. "For 2.7" is a good reason, too.
> I'm still keeping an eye out for firm "behavioural" bug reports on 2.6 and > would discuss or address them.
OK, thanks.
> Seriously the only reason I went down the rewrite path was to address > complaints about the complexity of the current design. It was also an > opportunity to start implementing some requested features. I certainly have > never suggested it should even be considered for 2.6.
Yeah, I tend to think that the CPU scheduler is currently 90% good enough, and does seem to have become rather opaque.
I wouldn't mind having a new "for fun" scheduler in -mm, except there's ongoing futzing with the current one to be sorted out. - 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/
| |