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 exte
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 runti
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 0
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 be
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 e
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 fo
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
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 g
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.
> >> T
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 or
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
