[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
    On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > > Willy,
    > >
    > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for
    > > > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the
    > > > feeling that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has
    > > > not tested recent versions. Don't get me wrong, I still think that CFS
    > > > is a more interesting long-term target. But it may require more time to
    > > > satisfy everyone. At least with one of them in 2.6.22, we won't waste
    > > > time comparing to current mainline.
    > >
    > > Oh no, we really do _NOT_ want to throw SD or anything else at mainline
    > > in a hurry just for not wasting time on comparing to the current
    > > scheduler.
    > It is not about doing it in a hurry. I see SD as a small yet efficient
    > update to current scheduler. It's not perfect, probably not much extensible
    > but the risks of breaking anything are small given the fact that it does
    > not change much of the code or behaviour.
    > IMHO, it is something which can provide users with a useful update while
    > leaving us with some more time to carefully implement the features of CFS
    > one at a time, and if it requires 5 versions, it's not a problem.
    > > I agree that CFS is the more interesting target and I prefer to push the
    > > more interesting one even if it takes a release cycle longer. The main
    > > reason for me is the design of CFS. Even if it is not really modular
    > > right now, it is not rocket science to make it fully modular.
    > >
    > > Looking at the areas where people work on, e.g. containers, resource
    > > management, cpu isolation, fully tickless systems ...., we really need
    > > to go into that direction, when we want to avoid permanent tinkering in
    > > the core scheduler code for the next five years.
    > >
    > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
    > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
    > Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
    > a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate
    > solution relying on a more solid framework.
    > > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the
    > > kernel in interesting ways.
    > Hmmm I guess you confused both of them this time. CFS touches many places,
    > which is why I think the testing coverage is still very low. SD can be
    > tested faster. My real concern is : are there still people observing
    > regressions with it ? If yes, they should be fixed before even being
    > merged. If no, why not merge it as a fix for the many known corner cases
    > of current scheduler ? After all, it's already in -mm.
    > Willy

    Willy, you're making far too much sense. Are you replying to the correct
    mailing list?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-29 13:51    [W:0.024 / U:33.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site