* O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert
@ 2002-10-04 13:33 Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-10-04 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marc-Christian Petersen @ 2002-10-04 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Robert Love
Hi there,
say, can anyone explain me why $subject patches are so different?
What exactly are the important differences, what patch should we use?
--
Kind regards
Marc-Christian Petersen
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wolk
PGP/GnuPG Key: 1024D/569DE2E3DB441A16
Fingerprint: 3469 0CF8 CA7E 0042 7824 080A 569D E2E3 DB44 1A16
Key available at www.keyserver.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert
2002-10-04 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2002-10-04 15:15 ` Robert Love
2002-10-04 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-10-04 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen, linux-kernel
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 11:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
>
> > say, can anyone explain me why $subject patches are so different? What
> > exactly are the important differences, what patch should we use?
>
> well as far as i can tell Robert has put other stuff into his patch, which
> isnt really part of the O(1) scheduler. So i'd call it "the O(1) scheduler
> plus stuff".
There should _not_ be other things in the patch aside from the
scheduler. Those patches are based on Ingo's original 2.4 patches with
back-ported fixes from 2.4-ac and 2.5. Unfortunately, at the moment the
patch is a bit out of sync. The only 2.4 version of the scheduler I
have been able to keep up-to-date is 2.4-ac... but the patch is not too
bad.
I think the reason my patches differ from Ingo's is that Ingo includes
code that is not yet in mainline 2.5. For example, last I checked his
patches had the SCHED_BATCH stuff, which is good, but I only want to put
code that is in 2.5 already and tested.
Robert Love
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert
2002-10-04 13:33 O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert Marc-Christian Petersen
@ 2002-10-04 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 15:15 ` Robert Love
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2002-10-04 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc-Christian Petersen; +Cc: linux-kernel, Robert Love
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> say, can anyone explain me why $subject patches are so different? What
> exactly are the important differences, what patch should we use?
well as far as i can tell Robert has put other stuff into his patch, which
isnt really part of the O(1) scheduler. So i'd call it "the O(1) scheduler
plus stuff".
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert
2002-10-04 15:15 ` Robert Love
@ 2002-10-04 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 19:28 ` Robert Love
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2002-10-04 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Love; +Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen, linux-kernel
On 4 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> There should _not_ be other things in the patch aside from the
> scheduler. [...]
hm, i remember there was some 'set max RT priority in .config' stuff in
it, isnt that the case anymore?
> I think the reason my patches differ from Ingo's is that Ingo includes
> code that is not yet in mainline 2.5. For example, last I checked his
> patches had the SCHED_BATCH stuff, [...]
hm, i forgot about that. Well, it's pretty harmless.
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert
2002-10-04 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2002-10-04 19:28 ` Robert Love
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-10-04 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen, linux-kernel
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 11:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > There should _not_ be other things in the patch aside from the
> > scheduler. [...]
>
> hm, i remember there was some 'set max RT priority in .config' stuff
> in it, isnt that the case anymore?
Oh, yes, indeed. I forgot about that.
Since we cleaned up the whole MAX_PRIO thing the only main difference in
my tree is that fact it is exported as a CONFIG setting (and the logic
to implement a new ffs if BITMAP_SIZE changes).
Otherwise the trees aim to be in-sync.
Robert Love
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-04 19:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-04 13:33 O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-10-04 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 15:15 ` Robert Love
2002-10-04 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 19:28 ` Robert Love
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).