lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: RSDL v0.31

    * Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net> wrote:

    > The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, [...]

    then we'll first have wait for those X changes to at least be done in a
    minimal manner so that they can be tested for real with RSDL. (is it
    _really_ due to that? Or will X regress forever once we switch to RSDL?)
    We cannot regress the scheduling of a workload as important as "X mixed
    with CPU-intense tasks". And "in theory this should be fixed if X is
    fixed" does not cut it. X is pretty much _the_ most important thing to
    optimize the interactive behavior of a Linux scheduler for. Also,
    paradoxically, it is precisely the improvement of _X_ workloads that
    RSDL argues with.

    this regression has to be fixed before RSDL can be merged, simply
    because it is a pretty negative effect that goes beyond any of the
    visible positive improvements that RSDL brings over the current
    scheduler. If it is better to fix X, then X has to be fixed _first_, at
    least in form of a prototype patch that can be _tested_, and then the
    result has to be validated against RSDL.

    Ingo
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-17 08:49    [W:0.022 / U:89.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site