Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc4-mm1] Task Throttling V14

[MIke Galbraith]

On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 12:16 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > MIke Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>Not many comments came back, zero actually.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > That's because everyone's terribly busy chasing down those final bugs so we
> > get a really great 2.6.16 release (heh, I kill me).
> > 
> > I'm a bit reluctant to add changes like this until we get the smpnice stuff
> > settled down and validated.  I guess that means once Ken's run all his
> > performance tests across it.
> > 
> > Of course, if Ken does his testing with just mainline+smpnice then any
> > coupling becomes less of a problem.  But I would like to see some feedback
> > from the other sched developers first.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see PlugSched merged in and this patch be used to 
> create a new scheduler inside PlugSched.  But I'm biased :-)
> 
> As I see it, the problem that this patch is addressing is caused by the 
> fact that the current scheduler is overly complicated.  This patch just 
> makes it more complicated.

What's complicated about the scheduler?  I see simple/elegant when I
look in there.  Interaction with the user is complex, but interactive
feel is a nebulous thing not restricted to this scheduler.

I really don't think this patch adds complexity, quite the opposite
actually.  It just does a small bit of tweaking to the scheduler's weak
spot, and adds a dirt simple barrier against starvation.  IMO, this
scheduler is not only quite simple, it's one weakness is generally
wonderful for throughput.  It's just that it's sometimes a bit _too_
wonderful ;-)

	-Mike

-
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/