Re: modifying CFS failure

[Peter Zijlstra]

Please provide it as a series of patches against sched-devel/latest.

Just plain AVL code and a huge modified CFS backport make it impossible
to tell what changed and why.

Which brings us to the question: _why_. That is, why are you trying to
replace the rb-tree with an avl tree? Just because the worst case depth
of the avl is slightly better than for an rb-tree, which can be offset
by the slightl more expesive balance operations.

I'm glad people are working on CFS - its an interesting piece of the
kernel after all, but provide it in a regular patch series, this is
impossible to work with, sorry.

--
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/