On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:06:14 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > Paul Jackson wrote: > > Matthew wrote: > > > >>I don't see the large ifdefs you're referring to in -mm's > >>kernel/sched.c. > > > > > > Perhaps someone who knows CKRM better than I can explain why the CKRM > > version in some SuSE releases based on 2.6.5 kernels has substantial > > code and some large ifdef's in sched.c, but the CKRM in *-mm doesn't. > > Or perhaps I'm confused. There's a good chance that this represents > > ongoing improvements that CKRM is making to reduce their footprint > > in core kernel code. Or perhaps there is a more sophisticated cpu > > controller in the SuSE kernel. > > As there is NO CKRM cpu controller in 2.6.13-rc3-mm1 (that I can see) > the one in 2.6.5 is certainly more sophisticated :-). So the reason > that the considerable mangling of sched.c evident in SuSE's 2.6.5 kernel > source is not present is that the cpu controller is not included in > these patches. Yeah - I don't really consider the current CPU controller code something ready for consideration yet for mainline merging. That doesn't mean we don't want a CPU controller for CKRM - just that what we have doesn't integrate cleanly/nicely with mainline.
> I imagine that the cpu controller is missing from this version of CKRM > because the bugs introduced to the cpu controller during upgrading from > 2.6.5 to 2.6.10 version have not yet been resolved. I don't know what bugs you are referring to here. I don't think we have any open defects with SuSE on the CPU scheduler in their releases. And that is not at all related to the reason for not having a CPU controller in the current patch set. gerrit - 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/