On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:42:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> i trust you kernel developers know what you are doing, but if scares me
> a little bit, that some integral and living part like O(1) being ripped off
> and being replaced by something new.
There's something even scarier - O(1) being
>Having a framework for giving people the choice between different
>solutions usually sounds good in theory, but in practice there's the
>often underestimated high price of people using a different solution
>instead of reporting a problem with one solution or people adding
>features to only
Having a framework for giving people the choice between different
solutions usually sounds good in theory, but in practice there's the
often underestimated high price of people using a different solution
instead of reporting a problem with one solution or people adding
features to only one of
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:42:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
i trust you kernel developers know what you are doing, but if scares me
a little bit, that some integral and living part like O(1) being ripped off
and being replaced by something new.
There's something even scarier - O(1) being
* Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
> >
> > hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem?
>
> It means a major rewrite of the plugsched interface and I'm
* Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem?
It means a major rewrite of the plugsched interface and I'm not sure
that
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
>
> hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem?
It means a major rewrite of the plugsched interface and I'm not sure
that it's worth it (if CFS works well). However, note
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:56:10AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> >
> > There are various metrics a scheduler may want to optimize for, such as
> > throughput, response time, power consumption, fairness, and so on. Each
> > of these may
* Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem? The CFS merge should make the life
of development/test patches like plugsched conceptually easier. (it will
certainly cause a lot of churn, but
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
>
> There are various metrics a scheduler may want to optimize for, such as
> throughput, response time, power consumption, fairness, and so on. Each
> of these may also be defined differently in different environments. Take
> fairness
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
There are various metrics a scheduler may want to optimize for, such as
throughput, response time, power consumption, fairness, and so on. Each
of these may also be defined differently in different environments. Take
fairness as an
* Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem? The CFS merge should make the life
of development/test patches like plugsched conceptually easier. (it will
certainly cause a lot of churn, but that's
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:56:10AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
There are various metrics a scheduler may want to optimize for, such as
throughput, response time, power consumption, fairness, and so on. Each
of these may also be
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
hm, why is CFS in mainline a problem?
It means a major rewrite of the plugsched interface and I'm not sure
that it's worth it (if CFS works well). However, note that I
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Bunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:46 PM
> To: Li, Tong N
> Cc: Giuseppe Bilotta; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.5.1 for 2.6.22
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:47:51AM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Williams wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
> > >
> > > What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
>
> > Peter Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
> >
> > What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible
even
> in
> > the presence of CFS or SD.
>
> Indeed, and I hope it gets
On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
Peter Williams wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible
even
in
the presence of CFS or SD.
Indeed, and I hope it gets merged, giving
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:47:51AM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
Peter Williams wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible
even
in
the
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Bunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:46 PM
To: Li, Tong N
Cc: Giuseppe Bilotta; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.5.1 for 2.6.22
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:47:51AM -0700, Li, Tong N
On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
>>
>> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
>
> What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible even in
> the presence of CFS or SD.
Indeed, and I hope it gets merged, giving
On Thursday 12 July 2007 00:17, Al Boldi wrote:
Peter Williams wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible even in
the presence of CFS or SD.
Indeed, and I hope it gets merged, giving people the
Peter Williams wrote:
>
> Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible even in
the presence of CFS or SD.
> A patch for 2.6.22 is available at:
>
>
Peter Williams wrote:
Probably the last one now that CFS is in the main line :-(.
What do you mean? A pluggable scheduler framework is indispensible even in
the presence of CFS or SD.
A patch for 2.6.22 is available at:
24 matches
Mail list logo