Paraphrasing Jens Axboe:
> I don't think you can compare [plugsched with the plugio framework].
> Yes they are both schedulers, but that's about where the 'similarity'
> stops. The CPU scheduler must be really fast, overhead must be kept
> to a minimum. For a disk scheduler, we can affort to burn
Paraphrasing Jens Axboe:
I don't think you can compare [plugsched with the plugio framework].
Yes they are both schedulers, but that's about where the 'similarity'
stops. The CPU scheduler must be really fast, overhead must be kept
to a minimum. For a disk scheduler, we can affort to burn cpu
Hi Peter,
> I'm hoping that the CKRM folks will send me a patch to add their
> scheduler to plugsched :-)
They are planning to release a patch against 2.6.10. But their patch wont
stand alone against 2.6.10 and so it might be difficult for you to integrate
their code into a scheduler for
Peter, thank you for maintaining Con's plugsched code in light of Linus' and
Ingo's prior objections to this idea. On the one hand, I partially agree
with Linus's prior views that when there is only one scheduler that the
rest of the world + dog will focus on making it better. On the other hand,
Peter, thank you for maintaining Con's plugsched code in light of Linus' and
Ingo's prior objections to this idea. On the one hand, I partially agree
with LinusIngo's prior views that when there is only one scheduler that the
rest of the world + dog will focus on making it better. On the other
Hi Peter,
I'm hoping that the CKRM folks will send me a patch to add their
scheduler to plugsched :-)
They are planning to release a patch against 2.6.10. But their patch wont
stand alone against 2.6.10 and so it might be difficult for you to integrate
their code into a scheduler for
6 matches
Mail list logo
