Hi Nick,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:29:54AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
(...)
And my scheduler for example cuts down the amount of policy code and
code size significantly. I haven't looked at Con's ones for a while,
but I believe they are also much more straightforward than mainline...
For
On Monday 16 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
And I snipped, Sorry fellas.
Con's original submission was to me, quite an improvement. But I have to say
it, and no denegration of your efforts is intended Con, but you did 'pull the
trigger' and get this thing rolling by scratching the itch &
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> I cannot help myself to not report results with GAVL
> tree algorithm there as an another race competitor.
> I believe, that it is better solution for large priority
> queues than RB-tree and even heap trees. It could be
> disputable if the scheduler needs
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:25:07AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Now this doesn't mean that people shouldn't be nice to each other, not
> cooperate or steal credits, but I don't get the impression that that is
> happening here. Ingo is taking part in the discussion with a counter
> proposal for
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Since then I've been thinking/working on a cpu scheduler design
> > that takes away all the guesswork out of scheduling and gives very
> > predictable, as fair as possible, cpu distribution and
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:15:27PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
> > far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
> > schedulers is wrong and
On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
> far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
> schedulers is wrong and a copout) This is one area where it is virtually
> impossible to
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> One of the reasons I never posted my own code is that it never met its
>> own design goals, which absolutely included switching on the fly. I
>> think Peter Williams may have done something about that.
>> It was my hope
>> to be able to do insmod sched_foo.ko until
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:31:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 4) the good thing that happened to I/O, after years of stagnation isnt
> >I/O schedulers. The good thing that happened to I/O is called Jens
> >Axboe. If you
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:52:33AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 16 April 2007 05:00, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
> > > your
> > > code is flawed in some way (by,
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
2) plugsched did not allow on the fly selection of schedulers, nor did
it allow a per CPU selection of schedulers. IO schedulers you can
change per disk, on the fly, making them much more useful in
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 12:58 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Chuckle, possibly but then I'm not anything even remotely close to an
>> expert here Con, just reporting what I get. And I just rebooted to
>> 2.6.21-rc6 + sched-mike-5.patch for grins and
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been suggesting testing CPU bandwidth allocation as influenced by
>> nice numbers for a while now for a reason.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Oh I was very much testing "CPU bandwidth allocation as
On Sunday 15 April 2007 00:38, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Haven't looked at the scheduler code yet, but for a similar problem I use
> a time ring. The ring has Ns (2 power is better) slots (where tasks are
> queued - in my case they were som sort of timers), and it has a current
> base index (Ib), a
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 2) plugsched did not allow on the fly selection of schedulers, nor did
>it allow a per CPU selection of schedulers. IO schedulers you can
>change per disk, on the fly, making them much more useful in
>practice. Also, IO
On Monday 16 April 2007 02:23:08 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 01:49 +0300, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
>
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 01:49 +0300, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> Hi,
> On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
> > [CFS]
> >
> > i'm pleased to announce the first release
On Monday 16 April 2007 05:00, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
> > your
> > code is flawed in some way (by, for example, making a patch that
> > people
> > claim gets better
Hi,
On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
> [CFS]
>
> i'm pleased to announce the first release of the "Modular Scheduler Core
> and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]" patchset:
>
&
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Look at what happened with I/O scheduling. Opening things up to some
> > new ideas by making it possible to select your I/O scheduler took us
> > from 10 years of stagnation to
* Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at what happened with I/O scheduling. Opening things up to some
> new ideas by making it possible to select your I/O scheduler took us
> from 10 years of stagnation to healthy, competitive development, which
> gave us a substantially better I/O
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:05:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> so the rejection was on these grounds, and i still very much stand by
> that position here and today: i didnt want to see the Linux scheduler
> landscape balkanized and i saw no technological reasons for the
> complication that
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:20:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > so Linus was right: this was caused by scheduler starvation. I can
> > see one immediate problem already: the 'nice offset' is not divided
> > by nr_running as it should. The
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so Linus was right: this was caused by scheduler starvation. I can see
> one immediate problem already: the 'nice offset' is not divided by
> nr_running as it should. The patch below should fix this but i have
> yet to test it accurately, this change
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:20:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> so Linus was right: this was caused by scheduler starvation. I can see
> one immediate problem already: the 'nice offset' is not divided by
> nr_running as it should. The patch below should fix this but i have yet
> to test it
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > to debug this, could you try to apply this add-on as well:
> >
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-fair-print.patch
> >
> > with this patch applied you should have a /proc/sched_debug file
> > that prints all runnable tasks and
On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
your
code is flawed in some way (by, for example, making a patch that
people
claim gets better behaviour or numbers), any *good* programmer that
actually cares about his
+ printk("Fair Scheduler: Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo
Molnar\n");
So that's what all the fuss about the staircase scheduler is all about
then! At last, I see your point.
i'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here:
he has proven via RSDL/SD
Hi Ingo,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, since I merged the fair-fork patch, I cannot reproduce (in fact,
> > bash forks 1000 processes, then progressively execs scheddos, but it
> > takes some time). So
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 16:08 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> >
> > He did exactly that and he did it with a patch. Nothing new here. This is
> > how development on LKML proceeds when you have two or more competing
> > designs. There's absolutely no
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 12:58 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Chuckle, possibly but then I'm not anything even remotely close to an expert
> here Con, just reporting what I get. And I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc6 +
> sched-mike-5.patch for grins and giggles, or frowns and profanity as the case
>
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, since I merged the fair-fork patch, I cannot reproduce (in fact,
> bash forks 1000 processes, then progressively execs scheddos, but it
> takes some time). So I'm rebuilding right now. But I think that Linus
> has an interesting clue about
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 16:08 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
> > the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, and using
> > part of Bill's work to speed up development.
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Monday 16 April 2007 01:16, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> >On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation
>> >> that sections of
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:16, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
> >> sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally "churn
> It outlines the problems with Linux kernel development and questionable
> elistism regarding ownership of certain sections of the kernel code.
I have to step in and disagree here
Linux is not about who writes the code.
Linux is about getting the best solution for a problem. Who wrote
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> A development process like this is likely to exclude smart people from wanting
> to contribute to Linux and folks should be conscious about this issues.
Nobody is excluded, you can always have a next iteration.
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...] and using part of Bill's work to speed up development.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ok, let me make this absolutely clear: i didnt use any bit of plugsched
> - in fact the most difficult bits of the
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
> the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, [...]
yes, that's precisely what i did, via a patchset :)
[ I can even tell you when it all started: i was thinking
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 02:45:27PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Now I hope he and Bill will get over this and accept to work on improving
> this scheduler, because I really find it smarter than a dumb O(1). I even
> agree with Mike that we now have a solid basis for future work. But for
> this,
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
>> sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally "churn squated" to prevent
>> any other ideas from creeping in other than
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ i'm quoting this bit out of order: ]
> 2. Since then I've been thinking/working on a cpu scheduler design
> that takes away all the guesswork out of scheduling and gives very
> predictable, as fair as possible, cpu distribution and latency while
>
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
> the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, and using
> part of Bill's work to speed up development.
He did exactly that and he did it with a patch. Nothing new
* Esben Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I took a brief look at it. Have you tested priority inheritance?
yeah, you are right, it's broken at the moment, i'll fix it. But the
good news is that i think PI could become cleaner via scheduling
classes.
> As far as I can see rt_mutex_setprio
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 01:39:27PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
> >sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally "churn squated" to prevent
> >any other ideas from
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
i'm pleased to announce the first release of the "Modular Scheduler Core
and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]" patchset:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sch
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally "churn squated" to prevent
any other ideas from creeping in other than of the owner of that subsytem
Strangely enough, my
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:44:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I prefer such early releases to lkml _alot_ more than any private review
> process. I released the CFS code about 6 hours after i thought "okay,
> this looks pretty good" and i spent those final 6 hours on testing it
> (making sure
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 10:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] (I know a trivial way to cure that, and this framework makes
> > that possible without dorking up fairness as a general policy.)
>
> great! Please send patches so i can add them (once
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your
> > attempt
>
> Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
> attention.
guys,
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 15:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > Well, I'll stop heating the room for now as I get out of ideas about
> > how to defeat it. I'm convinced. I'm impatient to read about Mike's
> > feedback with his workload which behaves
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 01:36 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
>
> Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
> attention.
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I think the main failure I see here is that Con wasn't included in
> this design or privately in review process. There could have been
> better co-ownership of the code. This could also have been done openly
> on lkml [...]
Bill, you
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [...]
>
> Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
attention.
> at writing a scheduler, or my attempts at fixing the one we
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 15:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Well, I'll stop heating the room for now as I get out of ideas about how
> to defeat it. I'm convinced. I'm impatient to read about Mike's feedback
> with his workload which behaves strangely on RSDL. If it works OK here,
> it will be the
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 13:27 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 14 April 2007 06:21, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
> > [CFS]
> >
> > i'm pleased to announce the first release of the "Modular Schedu
Hi,
On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
[CFS]
i'm pleased to announce the first release of the Modular Scheduler Core
and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] patchset:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs
On Monday 16 April 2007 05:00, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
your
code is flawed in some way (by, for example, making a patch that
people
claim gets better behaviour or
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 01:49 +0300, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
[CFS]
i'm pleased to announce the first release of the Modular Scheduler Core
and Completely Fair
On Monday 16 April 2007 02:23:08 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 01:49 +0300, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
[CFS]
i'm pleased to announce
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
2) plugsched did not allow on the fly selection of schedulers, nor did
it allow a per CPU selection of schedulers. IO schedulers you can
change per disk, on the fly, making them much more useful in
practice. Also, IO
On Sunday 15 April 2007 00:38, Davide Libenzi wrote:
Haven't looked at the scheduler code yet, but for a similar problem I use
a time ring. The ring has Ns (2 power is better) slots (where tasks are
queued - in my case they were som sort of timers), and it has a current
base index (Ib), a
* William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been suggesting testing CPU bandwidth allocation as influenced by
nice numbers for a while now for a reason.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Oh I was very much testing CPU bandwidth allocation as influenced by
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 12:58 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
Chuckle, possibly but then I'm not anything even remotely close to an
expert here Con, just reporting what I get. And I just rebooted to
2.6.21-rc6 + sched-mike-5.patch for grins and giggles,
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
2) plugsched did not allow on the fly selection of schedulers, nor did
it allow a per CPU selection of schedulers. IO schedulers you can
change per disk, on the fly, making them much more useful in
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:52:33AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 16 April 2007 05:00, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
your
code is flawed in some way (by, for example,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:31:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
4) the good thing that happened to I/O, after years of stagnation isnt
I/O schedulers. The good thing that happened to I/O is called Jens
Axboe. If you care
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
One of the reasons I never posted my own code is that it never met its
own design goals, which absolutely included switching on the fly. I
think Peter Williams may have done something about that.
It was my hope
to be able to do insmod sched_foo.ko until it became
On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
schedulers is wrong and a copout) This is one area where it is virtually
impossible to
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:15:27PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
schedulers is wrong and a
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Since then I've been thinking/working on a cpu scheduler design
that takes away all the guesswork out of scheduling and gives very
predictable, as fair as possible, cpu distribution and latency while
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:25:07AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Now this doesn't mean that people shouldn't be nice to each other, not
cooperate or steal credits, but I don't get the impression that that is
happening here. Ingo is taking part in the discussion with a counter
proposal for
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Pavel Pisa wrote:
I cannot help myself to not report results with GAVL
tree algorithm there as an another race competitor.
I believe, that it is better solution for large priority
queues than RB-tree and even heap trees. It could be
disputable if the scheduler needs such
On Monday 16 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
And I snipped, Sorry fellas.
Con's original submission was to me, quite an improvement. But I have to say
it, and no denegration of your efforts is intended Con, but you did 'pull the
trigger' and get this thing rolling by scratching the itch
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 13:27 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 14 April 2007 06:21, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
[CFS]
i'm pleased to announce the first release of the Modular Scheduler Core
and Completely Fair Scheduler
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 15:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Well, I'll stop heating the room for now as I get out of ideas about how
to defeat it. I'm convinced. I'm impatient to read about Mike's feedback
with his workload which behaves strangely on RSDL. If it works OK here,
it will be the
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
attention.
at writing a scheduler, or my attempts at fixing the one we have,
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 01:36 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
attention.
at
* Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello folks,
I think the main failure I see here is that Con wasn't included in
this design or privately in review process. There could have been
better co-ownership of the code. This could also have been done openly
on lkml [...]
Bill, you come
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 15:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Well, I'll stop heating the room for now as I get out of ideas about
how to defeat it. I'm convinced. I'm impatient to read about Mike's
feedback with his workload which behaves strangely
* Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your
attempt
Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying
attention.
guys, please calm
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 10:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] (I know a trivial way to cure that, and this framework makes
that possible without dorking up fairness as a general policy.)
great! Please send patches so i can add them (once you are
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:44:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I prefer such early releases to lkml _alot_ more than any private review
process. I released the CFS code about 6 hours after i thought okay,
this looks pretty good and i spent those final 6 hours on testing it
(making sure it
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally churn squated to prevent
any other ideas from creeping in other than of the owner of that subsytem
Strangely enough, my
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
i'm pleased to announce the first release of the Modular Scheduler Core
and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] patchset:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-modular
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 01:39:27PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally churn squated to prevent
any other ideas from creeping in
* Esben Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a brief look at it. Have you tested priority inheritance?
yeah, you are right, it's broken at the moment, i'll fix it. But the
good news is that i think PI could become cleaner via scheduling
classes.
As far as I can see rt_mutex_setprio
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, and using
part of Bill's work to speed up development.
He did exactly that and he did it with a patch. Nothing new here.
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ i'm quoting this bit out of order: ]
2. Since then I've been thinking/working on a cpu scheduler design
that takes away all the guesswork out of scheduling and gives very
predictable, as fair as possible, cpu distribution and latency while
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally churn squated to prevent
any other ideas from creeping in other than of the
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 02:45:27PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Now I hope he and Bill will get over this and accept to work on improving
this scheduler, because I really find it smarter than a dumb O(1). I even
agree with Mike that we now have a solid basis for future work. But for
this, maybe
* Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, [...]
yes, that's precisely what i did, via a patchset :)
[ I can even tell you when it all started: i was thinking
* Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] and using part of Bill's work to speed up development.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
ok, let me make this absolutely clear: i didnt use any bit of plugsched
- in fact the most difficult bits of the modularization
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
A development process like this is likely to exclude smart people from wanting
to contribute to Linux and folks should be conscious about this issues.
Nobody is excluded, you can always have a next iteration.
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
It outlines the problems with Linux kernel development and questionable
elistism regarding ownership of certain sections of the kernel code.
I have to step in and disagree here
Linux is not about who writes the code.
Linux is about getting the best solution for a problem. Who wrote which
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:16, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that
sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally churn squated to
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:16, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 4/15/07, hui Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation
that sections of the Linux kernel
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 16:08 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Ingo could have publicly spoken with them about his ideas of killing
the O(1) scheduler and replacing it with an rbtree-based one, and using
part of Bill's work to speed up development.
He
* Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, since I merged the fair-fork patch, I cannot reproduce (in fact,
bash forks 1000 processes, then progressively execs scheddos, but it
takes some time). So I'm rebuilding right now. But I think that Linus
has an interesting clue about GPM and
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 16:08 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
He did exactly that and he did it with a patch. Nothing new here. This is
how development on LKML proceeds when you have two or more competing
designs. There's absolutely no need to
401 - 500 of 623 matches
Mail list logo
