On 3/12/07, michael chang <thenewme91@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Considering the concepts put out by projects such as BOINC and
> SETI@Home, I wouldn't be thoroughly surprised by this ideology,
> although I do question the particular way this test case is being run.

If Con actually implements SCHED_IDLEPRIO in RSDL, life is good even
in that case.

quoted text
> This seems to me like he's saying that there has to be a mechanism
> (outside of nice) that can be used to treat processes that "I" want to
> be interactive all special-like. It feels like something that would
> have been said in the design of what the scheduler was in -ck and is
> currently in vanilla.

Exactly. Driving us again toward the fact that different workloads
might benefit from different schedulers (eg: RSDL is cool for server
loads, previous staircase did an excellent job on desktop, etc) and
thus that having a choice of schedulers might be something that would
satisfy (some) people...

quoted text
> To me, that fundamentally clashes with the design behind RSDL. That
> said, I could be wrong -- Con appears to have something that could be
> very promising up his sleeve that could come out sooner or later. Once
> he's written it, of course. In any case, RSDL seems very promising,
> for the most part.

It certainly is. "Negative" feedback can be a good thing too, as it
helps improving it anyway. It's nonetheless true that it's practically
impossible to satisfy 100% of use case with a single design, so
choices will have to be made.

HTH

T-Bone

-- 
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
-
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/