Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:42:25 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc4-mm1] Task Throttling V14 |
| |
Peter Williams wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> Not many comments came back, zero actually. >>> >> >> >> That's because everyone's terribly busy chasing down those final bugs >> so we >> get a really great 2.6.16 release (heh, I kill me). >> >> I'm a bit reluctant to add changes like this until we get the smpnice >> stuff >> settled down and validated. I guess that means once Ken's run all his >> performance tests across it. >> >> Of course, if Ken does his testing with just mainline+smpnice then any >> coupling becomes less of a problem. But I would like to see some >> feedback >> from the other sched developers first. > > > Personally, I'd rather see PlugSched merged in and this patch be used to > create a new scheduler inside PlugSched. But I'm biased :-) > > As I see it, the problem that this patch is addressing is caused by the > fact that the current scheduler is overly complicated. This patch just > makes it more complicated. Some of the schedulers in PlugSched already > handle this problem adequately and some of them are simpler than the > current scheduler -- the intersection of these two sets is not empty. > > So now that it's been acknowledged that the current scheduler has > problems, I think that we should be looking at other solutions in > addition to just making the current one more complicated. >
I tried this angle years ago and it didn't work :)
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |