Hi,

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted text
> _changing_ it is an option within reason, and we've done it a couple of 
> times already in the past, and even within CFS (as Peter correctly 
> observed) we've been through a couple of iterations already. And as i 
> mentioned it before, the outer edge of nice levels (+19, by far the most 
> commonly used nice level) was inconsistent to begin with: 3%, 5%, 9% of 
> nice-0, depending on HZ.

Why do you constantly stress level 19? Yes, that one is special, all other 
positive levels were already relatively consistent.

quoted text
> So changing that to a consistent (and 
> user-requested)

How old is CFS and how many users did it have so far? How many users has 
the old scheduler, which will be exposed to the new one soon?

quoted text
> 1.5% is a much smaller change than you seem to make it 
> out to be.

The percentage levels are off by a factor of upto _seven_, sorry I fail 
see how you can characterize this as "small".

quoted text
> So by your standard we could never change the 
> scheduler. (which your ultimate argument might be after all =B-)

Careful, you make assertion about me, for which you have absolutely no 
base, adding a smiley doesn't make this any funnier.

bye, Roman
-
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/