Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	caglar@pardus.org.tr, Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>,
	Zach Carter <linux@zachcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:11:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1177834277.6264.44.camel@Homer.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070429071627.GC23638@1wt.eu>

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested
> recent versions. Don't get me wrong, I still think that CFS is a more
> interesting long-term target.

While I haven't tested recent SD versions, unless it's design has
radically changed recently, I know what to expect.  CFS is giving me a
very high quality experience already (it's at a whopping v7), while
RSDL/SD irritated me greatly at version v40.  As far as I'm concerned,
CFS is the superior target, short-term, long-term whatever-term.  For
the tree where I make the decisions, the hammer has fallen, and RSDL/SD
is history.  Heck, I'm _almost_ ready to rm -rf my own scheduler trees
as well... I could really use some free disk space.

	-Mike