From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:08:26 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601061108.26561.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43BDB37D.1030601@bigpond.net.au>
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:02 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:13 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>If the plugsched patches were included in -mm we could get wider testing
> >>of alternative scheduling mechanisms. But I think it will take a lot of
> >>testing of the new schedulers to allay fears that they may introduce new
> >>problems of their own.
> >
> > When I first generated plugsched and posted it to lkml for inclusion in
> > -mm it was blocked as having no chance of being included by both Ingo and
> > Linus and I doubt they've changed their position since then. As you're
> > well aware this is why I gave up working on it and let you maintain it
> > since then. Obviously I thought it was a useful feature or I wouldn't
> > have worked on it.
>
> I've put a lot of effort into reducing code duplication and reducing the
> size of the interface and making it completely orthogonal to load
> balancing so I'm hopeful (perhaps mistakenly) that this makes it more
> acceptable (at least in -mm).
The objection was to dilution of developer effort towards one cpu scheduler to
rule them all. Linus' objection was against specialisation - he preferred one
cpu scheduler that could do everything rather than unique cpu schedulers for
NUMA, SMP, UP, embedded... Each approach has its own arguments and there
isn't much point bringing them up again. We shall use Linux as the
"steamroller to crack a nut" no matter what that nut is.
> My testing shows that there's no observable difference in performance
> between a stock kernel and plugsched with ingosched selected at the
> total system level (although micro benchmarking may show slight
> increases in individual operations).
I could find no difference either, but IA64 which does not cope with
indirection well would probably suffer a demonstrable performance hit I have
been told. I do not have access to such hardware.
> Anyway, I'll just keep plugging away,
Nice pun.
Cheers,
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-06 0:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 6:00 [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response Peter Williams
2005-12-21 6:09 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-21 6:32 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-21 13:21 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-21 13:36 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-12-21 13:40 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-22 2:26 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-22 22:08 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-22 22:33 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-22 22:59 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 0:02 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-12-23 0:25 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 3:06 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-23 9:39 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 10:49 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-23 12:51 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 13:36 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-02 12:09 ` Pekka Enberg
2005-12-23 19:07 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-23 21:08 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 21:17 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-23 21:23 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-23 22:04 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-23 22:10 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-12-21 16:10 ` Horst von Brand
2005-12-21 20:36 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-12-21 22:59 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-21 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-21 22:49 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-02 11:01 ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-02 23:54 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-04 1:25 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-04 9:40 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-04 12:18 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-04 10:31 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-04 21:51 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-05 6:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-05 11:31 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-05 14:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-05 23:13 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-05 23:33 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-06 0:02 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-06 0:08 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2006-01-06 0:40 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-06 7:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-07 1:11 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-07 5:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-07 6:34 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-07 8:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-07 23:40 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-08 5:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-07 9:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-07 10:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-07 23:31 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-08 0:38 ` Con Kolivas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601061108.26561.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=helgehaf@aitel.hist.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).