jos poortvliet wrote:
quoted text
> Op Sunday 04 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
>> Hi Con !
>>> This was designed to be robust for any application since linux demands a
>>> general purpose scheduler design, while preserving interactivity, instead
>>> of optimising for one particular end use.
>> Well, I haven't tested it yet, but your design choices please me. As you
>> know, I've been one of those encountering big starvation problems with
>> the original scheduler, making 2.6 unusable for me in many situations. I
>> welcome your work and want to thank you for the time you spend trying to
>> fix it.
>>
>> Keep up the good work,
>> Willy
>>
>> PS: I've looked at your graphs, I hope you're on the way to something
>> really better than the 21 first 2.6 releases !
> Well, imho his current staircase scheduler already does a better job compared 
> to mainline, but it won't make it in (or at least, it's not likely). So we 
> can hope this WILL make it into mainline, but I wouldn't count on it.
> 
Wrong problem, what is really needed is to get CPU scheduler choice into 
mainline, just as i/o scheduler finally did. Con has noted that for some 
loads this will present suboptimal performance, as will his -ck patches, 
as will the default scheduler. Instead of trying to make ANY one size 
fit all, we should have a means to select, at runtime, between any of 
the schedulers, and preferably to define an interface by which a user 
can insert a new scheduler in the kernel (compile in, I don't mean 
plugable) with clear and well defined rules for how that can be done.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/