login
Header Space

 
 

Re: modifying CFS failure

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <cs044024@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Date: Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 8:22 am

Please provide it as a series of patches against sched-devel/latest.

Just plain AVL code and a huge modified CFS backport make it impossible
to tell what changed and why.

Which brings us to the question: _why_. That is, why are you trying to
replace the rb-tree with an avl tree? Just because the worst case depth
of the avl is slightly better than for an rb-tree, which can be offset
by the slightl more expesive balance operations.

I'm glad people are working on CFS - its an interesting piece of the
kernel after all, but provide it in a regular patch series, this is
impossible to work with, sorry.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
modifying CFS failure, , (Fri Apr 11, 11:46 pm)
Re: modifying CFS failure, Peter Zijlstra, (Sat Apr 12, 8:22 am)
Re: modifying CFS failure, , (Sun Apr 13, 11:53 am)
Re: modifying CFS failure, Willy Tarreau, (Sat Apr 12, 9:22 am)
speck-geostationary