Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:37:47 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a > modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to > the driver API as-given. It takes a bit more work to get something that > actually works for all this, and it borders on disingenuity to > suggest that the scheduler class/driver API as it now stands is > capable of any such thing as porting current mainline, nicksched, or SD > to it without significant code impact to the core scheduler code.
I never said, that the current implementation of CFS fits the criteria of modularity, but it is a step in that direction. I'm well aware that there is a bunch of things missing and it has hard coded leftovers, which are related to the current two hard coded policy classes.
> So on both these points, I don't see cfs as being adequate as it now > stands for a modular, hierarchical scheduler design. If we want a truly > modular and hierarchical scheduler design, I'd suggest pursuing it > directly and independently of policy, and furthermore considering the > representability of various policies in the scheduling class/driver API > as a test of its adequacy.
Ack. I don't worry much whether the CFS policy is better than the SD one. I'm all for a truly modular design. SD and SCHED_FAIR are good proofs for it.
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/
| |