Hi,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> _changing_ it is an option within reason, and we've done it a couple of
> times already in the past, and even within CFS (as Peter correctly
> observed) we've been through a couple of iterations already. And as i
> mentioned it before, the outer edge of nice levels (+19, by far the most
> commonly used nice level) was inconsistent to begin with: 3%, 5%, 9% of
> nice-0, depending on HZ.
Why do you constantly stress level 19? Yes, that one is special, all other
positive levels were already relatively consistent.
> So changing that to a consistent (and
> user-requested)
How old is CFS and how many users did it have so far? How many users has
the old scheduler, which will be exposed to the new one soon?
> 1.5% is a much smaller change than you seem to make it
> out to be.
The percentage levels are off by a factor of upto _seven_, sorry I fail
see how you can characterize this as "small".
> So by your standard we could never change the
> scheduler. (which your ultimate argument might be after all =B-)
Careful, you make assertion about me, for which you have absolutely no
base, adding a smiley doesn't make this any funnier.
bye, Roman
-
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]
