* Nicholas Miell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, [...]
then we'll first have wait for those X changes to at least be done in a
minimal manner so that they can be tested for real with RSDL. (is it
_really_ due to that? Or will X regress forever once we switch to RSDL?)
We cannot regress the scheduling of a workload as important as "X mixed
with CPU-intense tasks". And "in theory this should be fixed if X is
fixed" does not cut it. X is pretty much _the_ most important thing to
optimize the interactive behavior of a Linux scheduler for. Also,
paradoxically, it is precisely the improvement of _X_ workloads that
RSDL argues with.
this regression has to be fixed before RSDL can be merged, simply
because it is a pretty negative effect that goes beyond any of the
visible positive improvements that RSDL brings over the current
scheduler. If it is better to fix X, then X has to be fixed _first_, at
least in form of a prototype patch that can be _tested_, and then the
result has to be validated against RSDL.
Ingo
-
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/
