David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
the x86 MMU decodes what
David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
the x86 MMU decodes what
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Last I checked there were limits to runtime configurability centering
>> around only supporting a compiled-in set of scheduling drivers, unless
>> Peter's taken it the rest of the way without my noticing. It's unclear
>> what you have in mind in terms of dynamic
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> A useful exercise may also be enumerating
> >> your expectations and having those who actually work with the code
> >> describe how well those are actually met.
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:34:25AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > A
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
A useful exercise may also be enumerating
your expectations and having those who actually work with the code
describe how well those are actually met.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:34:25AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
A runtime
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Last I checked there were limits to runtime configurability centering
around only supporting a compiled-in set of scheduling drivers, unless
Peter's taken it the rest of the way without my noticing. It's unclear
what you have in mind in terms of dynamic
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>>> How diplomatic.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Impoliteness doesn't accomplish anything I want to do.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > How diplomatic.
>
> Impoliteness doesn't accomplish anything I want to do.
Fair enough. But
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:18:31PM -0500, Ryan Hope wrote:
> from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched
> schedulers because they have to share code
> even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to
> choose which one was built into the kernel would be
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
the x86 MMU decodes what was intended, or
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> The short translation of my message for you is "Linus, please don't
>> LART me too hard."
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Right.
Given where the code originally came from, I've got bullets to dodge.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>
from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched
schedulers because they have to share code
even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to
choose which one was built into the kernel would be easy (only takes a
few ifdefs), i too think competition would be
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
> >> therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
> >> code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
> >> use for it.
> >>
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
>> therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
>> code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
>> use for it.
>> There's my longwinded excuse for having
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:31:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > No. Really.
> > I absolutely *detest* pluggable schedulers. They have a huge downside:
> > they allow people to think that it's ok to make special-case schedulers.
> > And I simply very fundamentally
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:31:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
No. Really.
I absolutely *detest* pluggable schedulers. They have a huge downside:
they allow people to think that it's ok to make special-case schedulers.
And I simply very fundamentally
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
use for it.
There's my longwinded excuse for having originated
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
use for it.
There's my
from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched
schedulers because they have to share code
even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to
choose which one was built into the kernel would be easy (only takes a
few ifdefs), i too think competition would be
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The short translation of my message for you is Linus, please don't
LART me too hard.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Right.
Given where the code originally came from, I've got bullets to dodge.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
This sort of
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
the x86 MMU decodes what was intended, or
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:18:31PM -0500, Ryan Hope wrote:
from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched
schedulers because they have to share code
even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to
choose which one was built into the kernel would be easy
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
How diplomatic.
Impoliteness doesn't accomplish anything I want to do.
Fair enough. But being
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:43:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
How diplomatic.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Impoliteness doesn't accomplish anything I want to do.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at
24 matches
Mail list logo
