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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
