On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:45:32PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of 
> > > > modular schedulers.
> > > > 
> > > > OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image of an x86 defconfig (that 
> > > > doesn't use modular schedulers) bigger by nearly 2 kB.
> > > 
> > > Big nack, I use it all the time for testing.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > > Just because you don't
> > > happen to use it is not a reason to remove it.
> > 
> > s/you/you and all distributions you checked/
> 
> Well they should make them modules (two of them, that is).
>...

Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?

I have the gut feeling that the usual thing happens and people e.g. not 
report some cfq problems because as works for them...

quoted text
> Jens Axboe

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/