Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

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/