jos poortvliet wrote:
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
