Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely FairScheduler [CFS]

[David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely
>     FairScheduler [CFS]
>
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 05:40 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:29:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Yup, and progress _is_ happening now, quite rapidly.
> >
> > Progress as in progress on Ingo's scheduler. I still don't know how we'd
> > decide when to replace the mainline scheduler or with what.
> >
> > I don't think we can say Ingo's is better than the alternatives, can we?
>
> No, that would require massive performance testing of all alternatives.
>
> > If there is some kind of bakeoff, then I'd like one of Con's designs to
> > be involved, and mine, and Peter's...
>
> The trouble with a bakeoff is that it's pretty darn hard to get people
> to test in the first place, and then comes weighting the subjective and
> hard performance numbers.  If they're close in numbers, do you go with
> the one which starts the least flamewars or what?

it's especially hard if the people doing the testing need to find the latest 
patch and apply it.

even having a compile-time option to switch between them at least means that the 
testers can have confidence that the various patches haven't bitrotted.

boot time options would be even better, but I understand from previous 
discussions I've watched that this is performance critical enough that the 
overhead of this would throw off the results.

David Lang
-
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/