Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's quite hard to do. A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's _interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was chosen over SD (hint: it wasn't). Since it's generating good discussion I'll otherwise leave it as is. As a parting gesture; a couple of hints for CFS. Any difference in behaviour between CFS and SD since they both aim for fairness would come down to the way they interpret fair. Since CFS accounts sleep time whereas SD does not, that would be the reason. As for volanomark regressions, they're always the sched_yield implementation. SD addressed a similar regression a few months back. Good luck. -- -ck -
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Mel Gorman | [PATCH 6/8] x86_64 - Specify amount of kernel memory at boot time |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 ( possibly?caused by netem) |
