From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753826Ab2EVFOt (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2012 01:14:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:61322 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753614Ab2EVFOs (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2012 01:14:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1337084609.27020.156.camel@laptop> <1337086834.27020.162.camel@laptop> <1337096141.27694.82.camel@twins> <1337193010.27694.146.camel@twins> <1337468148.573.139.camel@twins> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:14:47 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Plumbers: Tweaking scheduler policy micro-conf RFP From: Chen To: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Vincent Guittot , torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mou Chen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Chen wrote: > Still you are just trying to said that your code is not bloated? > Up to over 500K for a cpu scheduler. Laughing So please stop increasing the size of cpu scheduler's code. Users can't benefit anything from that. Also the interactivity problem of scheduler is still exist though it improves a lot already. It is better to stop bloating. Isn't ? Also I m quite agree with Linus. The model of the scheduler now is complex and there are many *UNNECESSARY* code. I CAN'T REALLY BENEFIT ANYTHING. I just make my kernel with -j2 and the music is already sucking![Intel E7500, 2.9GHZ, two core]. It can show that how the interactivity problem is serious with mainline cpu scheduler. I know it is not all the fault of mainline cpu scheduler but it is still a big interactivity problem with it. [me think that Peter is proud of his insane-box-supporting stuff]