Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 06:36:24AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Why bother?  It is V3, it should be left undisturbed except for 
> bugfixes.  Please, spend your efforts on reducing V4 latency and 
> measuring whether it fails to scale to multiple processors.  That would 
> be very useful to me if someone helped with that.  V4 has the 
> architecture for doing such things well, but there are always accidental 
> bottlenecks that testing can discover, and I am sure we will have a 
> handful of things preventing us from scaling well that are not hard to 
> fix.  It would be nice to fix those......
> The hard stuff for scalability, the locking of the tree, we did that.  
> We just haven't tested and evaluated and refined like we need to in V4.

It's not for scalability; it's for cleaning up the users, which are
universally buggy. My suggestion above would not, in fact, make reiser3
any more scalable; it would merely isolate the locking semantics it
couldn't live without into its own internals.


-- wli
-
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/