Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:09:33 +0100 | From | "Thibaut VARENE" <> | Subject | Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 |
| |
On 3/12/07, michael chang <thenewme91@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering the concepts put out by projects such as BOINC and > SETI@Home, I wouldn't be thoroughly surprised by this ideology, > although I do question the particular way this test case is being run.
If Con actually implements SCHED_IDLEPRIO in RSDL, life is good even in that case.
> This seems to me like he's saying that there has to be a mechanism > (outside of nice) that can be used to treat processes that "I" want to > be interactive all special-like. It feels like something that would > have been said in the design of what the scheduler was in -ck and is > currently in vanilla.
Exactly. Driving us again toward the fact that different workloads might benefit from different schedulers (eg: RSDL is cool for server loads, previous staircase did an excellent job on desktop, etc) and thus that having a choice of schedulers might be something that would satisfy (some) people...
> To me, that fundamentally clashes with the design behind RSDL. That > said, I could be wrong -- Con appears to have something that could be > very promising up his sleeve that could come out sooner or later. Once > he's written it, of course. In any case, RSDL seems very promising, > for the most part.
It certainly is. "Negative" feedback can be a good thing too, as it helps improving it anyway. It's nonetheless true that it's practically impossible to satisfy 100% of use case with a single design, so choices will have to be made.
HTH
T-Bone
-- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ - 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/
| |