On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:45:32PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
> > > > modular schedulers.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image of an x86 defconfig (that
> > > > doesn't use modular schedulers) bigger by nearly 2 kB.
> > >
> > > Big nack, I use it all the time for testing.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > Just because you don't
> > > happen to use it is not a reason to remove it.
> >
> > s/you/you and all distributions you checked/
>
> Well they should make them modules (two of them, that is).
>...
Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
I have the gut feeling that the usual thing happens and people e.g. not
report some cfq problems because as works for them...
> Jens Axboe
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
