On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
>
> Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
> a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate
> solution relying on a more solid framework.
That's the whole reason why I don't see any usefulness in merging SD
now. When we merge SD now, then we need to care of both - the real
solution and the fixup of regressions. Right now we have a not perfect
scheduler with known weak points. Ripping it out and replacing it is
going to introduce regressions, what ever low risk you see.
And I still do not see a benefit of an intermediate step with a in my
opinion medium to high risk of regressions, instead of going the full
way, when we agree that this is the correct solution.
tglx
-
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/
