Hi Martin,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Satyam Sharma:
Hi Martin,
Hi Satyam,
I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just
the way he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But
still I believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code
completely I would
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between
* Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So whats wrong then?
Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by
Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that
_anyone_ can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that?
Did you expect some
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:31 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Absolutely.
Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
isn't Con Kolivas, who pretends to speak for him is at the very least
* Kasper Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] As far as im concerned, i may be forced to unofficially maintain
SD for my own systems(allthough lots in the gaming community is bound
to be interrested, as it does make games lots better)
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
chuckle
You're advocating plugsched now?
I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
the way he split up the files, it's actually easier from a
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
chuckle
You're advocating plugsched now?
On 30/07/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
the
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
He said having reality checks is a good thing. He's encouraging some
poor bastard to maintain plugsched out of mainline to have SD or
whatever to compare to.
My bad, it was me who misread that (I didn't react to the name, I was
thinking people
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 14:48 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Absolutely.
Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
isn't Con
On 7/30/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, how hard is it for people to just admit that CFS actually
does better than SD on a number of things? Including very much on the
desktop.
Actually in benchmarks Ingo has quoted, SD was better on the desktop
(by a small margin).
> It's like CONFIG_HZ - more or less often debated, and now we have everyone
> happy by giving them the choice.
That's an interesting analogy -- since really the right answer there
seems not to be modal at all, but rather to do CONFIG_NO_HZ.
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox
> it's quite hard to do.
Con, good to hear from you. Good luck with your future endeavors.
Charles
--
"Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable,
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think anything was suppressed here.
I disagree. See below.
> You seem to say that more modular code would have helped make for a nicer
> way to do schedulers, but if so, where were those patches to do that?
> Con's
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
> I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
> people
> were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
> the
Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's
quite hard to do.
A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's
_interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For
example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was
Hi,
I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when people
were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
the reports of huge improvements with his 2.4 kernel patches.
...
The second: too many
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I personally feel that modal behaviour is bad, so it would introduce what
is in my opinion bad code, and likely result in problems not being found
and fixed as well (because people would pick the thing that "works for
them", and ignore the problems in the other module).
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> I generally run with CONFIG_HZ=100, CONFIG_NO_HZ=n, CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE.
Ok, that's HZ=100 is likely the worst case, as it effectively multiples
all the scheduler latencies by 10 (rather than by 4, which is what the
default 250Hz does).
That
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
> a central scheduler to hack is a a good thing, it shouldn't lock out or
> supress development from other groups that might be trying to solve the
> problem in unique ways.
I
On Jul 28 2007 14:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>Btw, people who actually have 3D games installed (I have exactly one:
>ppracer, and I can't really say that I care about how it feels), if you
>don't have CONFIG_HZ=1000, this really is worth testing.
>
>I think Ingo probably ran with CONFIG_NO_HZ
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Yes, it's what "/proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns" is supposed to
> tweak, but maybe there's some misfeature there, or maybe the default is
> just bad for games, or whatever.
>
> Ingo: that sysctl_sched_granularity initialization doesn't
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:06:09PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because it
> would have resulted in one scheduler over the other?
My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
a central scheduler to hack is
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
> >
> > So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
> > are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> As a long-term maintainer, trust me, I know what matters. And a person who
> can actually be bothered to follow up on problem reports is a *hell* of a
> lot more important than one who just argues with reporters.
>
>
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> of how crappy X is. This is an open argument on how to solve, but it
> should not have resulted in really one scheduler over the other. Both
So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because
On Jul 28 2007 22:51, Diego Calleja wrote:
>El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>escribió:
>
>> So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
>> are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
>> to
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
> are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
> to have problems (simply because there will be cases
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
>
> Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
> that.
But I wanted to bring out more than what you make sound like "that's what
happened, deal with it". I tried to explain _why_ the choices that were
made were in
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:36PM +0200, jos poortvliet wrote:
> Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
> that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
> how many did leave without this splash. How many didn't even get involved
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Time to investigate...
Well, one thing that would be worth doing is to simply create a trace of
time-slices for both schedulers.
It could easily be some hacky thing that just saves the process name and
TSC at each scheduling event in some
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
>
> Compare this to SD for a while. Ponder.
>
> Linus
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
how many did
On Jul 28 2007 10:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>>
>> First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
>> i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
>> unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
>
>
Actually, the tag you were looking for was ""
> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18350_id=259044
>
> Now I wonder. Apparently, one person complaining about SD was reason to keep
> it out
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 10:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
> > i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
> > unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
> then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes to mind)
> and let them choose what pleases them most, and handles their workload best?
This is one
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
> > I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> > that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
>
> I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
>
> No. The
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>
> First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
> i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
> unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences people are
> writing about on IRC. Frankly, im
On Jul 28 2007 10:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
>part. [...]
>The fact is, most kernel developers realize that Linux is used in
>different places, on different machines, and with different loads. You
>cannot make
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Ronni Nielsen wrote:
>
> - Linus 2.6.23-rc1
> + Linux 2.6.23-rc1
>
> Or are *you* now under versioning?
> Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
Yeah, yeah, my fingers get confused. I type "Linux" and "Linus"
interchangably, and _most_ of the time I notice, but then
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
>
> I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
No. The complaints were about the CK scheduler not being as
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jonathan Jessup wrote:
>
> Linus, there is a complaint about the Linux kernel, this complaint is that
> the Linux kernel isn't giving priorities to desktop interactivity and
> experience. The response on osnews.com etc have shown that there is public
> demand for it too.
Hi,
On 28/07/07, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
> > bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
> > applications, but still I think the number of bug
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
> bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
> applications, but still I think the number of bug reports in the kernel
> bugtracker is ridicolously low. And I think
Hmm
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
+ Linux 2.6.23-rc1
Or are *you* now under versioning?
Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
/ronni
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 7/27/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than
> trying to work with them.
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel. He
Up till now i haven't read the interview with Linus.
> [2] http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/
>
It is interesting, he mentiones a lesson to learn from Microsoft:
"'Well, historically, the most important lesson from Microsoft - and one they
themselves seem to have forgotten -
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Matthew Hawkins:
> On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People who think SD was "perfect" were simply ignoring reality.
> > Sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main
> > reasons that I never ended entertaining the notion
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD
> > in smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are
> > quake(s), world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004.
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> > world of warcraft via wine, unreal
On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who think SD was "perfect" were simply ignoring reality. Sadly,
> that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I
> never ended entertaining the notion of merging SD for very long at all:
> Con ended up arguing
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is
On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who think SD was perfect were simply ignoring reality. Sadly,
that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I
never ended entertaining the notion of merging SD for very long at all:
Con ended up arguing against
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD
in smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are
quake(s), world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Matthew Hawkins:
On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who think SD was perfect were simply ignoring reality.
Sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main
reasons that I never ended entertaining the notion of merging
Up till now i haven't read the interview with Linus.
[2] http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/
It is interesting, he mentiones a lesson to learn from Microsoft:
'Well, historically, the most important lesson from Microsoft - and one they
themselves seem to have forgotten - is
On 7/27/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than
trying to work with them.
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel. He
said
Hmm
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
+ Linux 2.6.23-rc1
Or are *you* now under versioning?
Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
/ronni
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
applications, but still I think the number of bug reports in the kernel
bugtracker is ridicolously low. And I think thats
Hi,
On 28/07/07, Stefan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
applications, but still I think the number of bug reports in the
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jonathan Jessup wrote:
Linus, there is a complaint about the Linux kernel, this complaint is that
the Linux kernel isn't giving priorities to desktop interactivity and
experience. The response on osnews.com etc have shown that there is public
demand for it too.
No,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
No. The complaints were about the CK scheduler not being as responsive
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Ronni Nielsen wrote:
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
+ Linux 2.6.23-rc1
Or are *you* now under versioning?
Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
Yeah, yeah, my fingers get confused. I type Linux and Linus
interchangably, and _most_ of the time I notice, but then at other
On Jul 28 2007 10:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
part. [...]
The fact is, most kernel developers realize that Linux is used in
different places, on different machines, and with different loads. You
cannot make _everybody_
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences people are
writing about on IRC. Frankly, im not
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
No. The complaints
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes to mind)
and let them choose what pleases them most, and handles their workload best?
This is one approach,
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 10:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
sarcasm
Actually, the tag you were looking for was clueless
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18350comment_id=259044
Now I wonder. Apparently, one person complaining about SD was reason to keep
it out
On Jul 28 2007 10:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences people
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
snip stuff i generally sagree with
Compare this to SD for a while. Ponder.
Linus
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Time to investigate...
Well, one thing that would be worth doing is to simply create a trace of
time-slices for both schedulers.
It could easily be some hacky thing that just saves the process name and
TSC at each scheduling event in some fairly
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:36PM +0200, jos poortvliet wrote:
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
how many did leave without this splash. How many didn't even get involved at
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that.
But I wanted to bring out more than what you make sound like that's what
happened, deal with it. I tried to explain _why_ the choices that were
made were in fact
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
So modal things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
to have problems (simply because there will be cases that
On Jul 28 2007 22:51, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
So modal things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
to have
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
of how crappy X is. This is an open argument on how to solve, but it
should not have resulted in really one scheduler over the other. Both
So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because it
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
As a long-term maintainer, trust me, I know what matters. And a person who
can actually be bothered to follow up on problem reports is a *hell* of a
lot more important than one who just argues with reporters.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
So modal things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
to have
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Yes, it's what /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns is supposed to
tweak, but maybe there's some misfeature there, or maybe the default is
just bad for games, or whatever.
Ingo: that sysctl_sched_granularity initialization doesn't make sense.
On Jul 28 2007 14:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Btw, people who actually have 3D games installed (I have exactly one:
ppracer, and I can't really say that I care about how it feels), if you
don't have CONFIG_HZ=1000, this really is worth testing.
I think Ingo probably ran with CONFIG_NO_HZ and
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:06:09PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because it
would have resulted in one scheduler over the other?
My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
a central scheduler to hack is a
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
a central scheduler to hack is a a good thing, it shouldn't lock out or
supress development from other groups that might be trying to solve the
problem in unique ways.
I don't
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I generally run with CONFIG_HZ=100, CONFIG_NO_HZ=n, CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE.
Ok, that's HZ=100 is likely the worst case, as it effectively multiples
all the scheduler latencies by 10 (rather than by 4, which is what the
default 250Hz does).
That
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I personally feel that modal behaviour is bad, so it would introduce what
is in my opinion bad code, and likely result in problems not being found
and fixed as well (because people would pick the thing that works for
them, and ignore the problems in the other module).
Hi,
I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when people
were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
the reports of huge improvements with his 2.4 kernel patches.
...
The second: too many
Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's
quite hard to do.
A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's
_interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For
example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Hi,
I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
people
were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
the reports of
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I don't think anything was suppressed here.
I disagree. See below.
You seem to say that more modular code would have helped make for a nicer
way to do schedulers, but if so, where were those patches to do that?
Con's patches
Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox
it's quite hard to do.
Con, good to hear from you. Good luck with your future endeavors.
Charles
--
Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable,
It's like CONFIG_HZ - more or less often debated, and now we have everyone
happy by giving them the choice.
That's an interesting analogy -- since really the right answer there
seems not to be modal at all, but rather to do CONFIG_NO_HZ.
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>
> Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is despite
> many patches he sent me to try
(sorry for repost, but there seemed to have been some troubles..)
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 14:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, right on time, two weeks afetr 2.6.22, there's a 2.6.23-rc1 out there.
>
> And it has a *ton* of changes as usual for the merge window, way too much
> for me to be
(sorry for repost, but there seemed to have been some troubles..)
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 14:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok, right on time, two weeks afetr 2.6.22, there's a 2.6.23-rc1 out there.
And it has a *ton* of changes as usual for the merge window, way too much
for me to be able
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is despite
many patches he sent me to try and
On Monday 23 July 2007 16:44, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 23 July 2007 19:43:56 Gabriel C wrote:
> > > I get some ACPI Exception.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > [ 33.075429] ACPI Exception (processor_throttling-0084): AE_NOT_FOUND,
>
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Monday 23 July 2007 05:50, Mel Gorman wrote:
This was seen on a machine on test.kernel.org;
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
RIP:
[] acpi_processor_throttling_seq_show+0xa7/0xd6
PGD 3bd9e067 PUD 3bc6a067 PMD 0
101 - 200 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
