Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

[Con Kolivas]

On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
> far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
> schedulers is wrong and a copout) This is one area where it is virtually
> impossible to discount any decent design on correctness/performance/etc.
> and even testing in -mm isn't really enough.

We're in agreement! YAY!

Actually this is simpler than that. I'm taking SD out of the picture. It has 
served it's purpose of proving that we need to seriously address all the 
scheduling issues and did more than a half decent job at it. Unfortunately I 
also cannot sit around supporting it forever by myself. My own life is more 
important, so consider SD not even running the race any more.

I'm off to continue maintaining permanent-out-of-tree leisurely code at my own 
pace. What's more is, I think I'll just stick to staircase Gen I version blah 
and shelve SD and try to have fond memories of SD as an intellectual 
prompting exercise only.

-- 
-ck
-
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/