Re: [SHED] Questions.

[Con Kolivas]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:03, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:07, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > IMHO, this minor change will provide a more solid, predictable base for
> > Con and Nick's dynamic priority and dynamic timeslice experiments.
>
> Most definitely.

No, the correct answer is maybe... if after it's redesigned and put through 
lots of testing to ensure it doesn't create other regressions. I'm not saying 
it isn't correct, just that it's a major architectural change you're 
promoting. Now isn't the time for that.

Why not just wait till 2.6.10 and plop in a new scheduler a'la dropping in a 
new vm into 2.4.10... <sigh> 

The cpu scheduler simply isn't broken as the people on this mailing list seem 
to think it is. While my tweaks _look_ large, they're really just tweaking 
the way the numbers feed back into a basically unchanged design. All the 
incremental changes have been modifying the same small sections of sched.c 
over and over again. Nick's changes change the size of timeslices and the 
priority variation in a much more fundamental way but still use the basic 
architecture of the scheduler. 

Promoting a new scheduler design entirely is admirable and ultimately probably 
worth pursuing but not 2.6 stuff.

Con

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/