Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 | From | Kasper Sandberg <> | Date | Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:21:09 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:13 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > <snip> > > > 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. > > > > > See this is the part i dont understand, what makes CFS the ultimate > > solution compared to SD? > > SD is a one to one replacement of the existing scheduler guts - with a > different behaviour. > > CFS is a huge step into a modular and hierarchical scheduler design, > which allows more than just implementing a clever scheduler for a single > purpose. In a hierarchical scheduler you can implement resource > management and other fancy things, in the monolitic design of the > current scheduler (and it's proposed replacement SD) you can't. But SD > can be made one of the modular variants. But all these things, arent they just in the modular scheduler policy code? and not the actual sched_cfs one?
> > tglx > > >
- 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/
| |