Re: RSDL v0.31

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, [...]

then we'll first have wait for those X changes to at least be done in a 
minimal manner so that they can be tested for real with RSDL. (is it 
_really_ due to that? Or will X regress forever once we switch to RSDL?) 
We cannot regress the scheduling of a workload as important as "X mixed 
with CPU-intense tasks". And "in theory this should be fixed if X is 
fixed" does not cut it. X is pretty much _the_ most important thing to 
optimize the interactive behavior of a Linux scheduler for. Also, 
paradoxically, it is precisely the improvement of _X_ workloads that 
RSDL argues with.

this regression has to be fixed before RSDL can be merged, simply 
because it is a pretty negative effect that goes beyond any of the 
visible positive improvements that RSDL brings over the current 
scheduler. If it is better to fix X, then X has to be fixed _first_, at 
least in form of a prototype patch that can be _tested_, and then the 
result has to be validated against RSDL.

	Ingo
-
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/