Hi, On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> _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. > 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? > 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". > 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 - 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/