Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 | Date | Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:46:15 +1000 |
| |
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?
-- -ck - 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/
| |