From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751972AbXCTSJH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:09:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752679AbXCTSJH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:09:07 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.160] ([212.12.190.160]:33222 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751972AbXCTSJF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:09:05 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: RSDL v0.31 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:08:26 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Willy Tarreau , Xavier Bestel , Mark Lord , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , ck@vds.kolivas.org, Serge Belyshev , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Miell , Andrew Morton References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070320061152.GW943@1wt.eu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <200703202108.26122.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > I was very happy to see the "try this patch" email from Al Boldi - not > because I think that patch per se was necessarily the right fix (I have no > idea), Well, it wasn't really meant as a fix, but rather to point out that interactivity boosting is possible with RSDL. It probably needs a lot more work, but just this one-liner gives an unbelievable ia boost. > but simply because I think that's the kind of mindset we need to have. Thanks. > Not a lot of people really *like* the old scheduler, but it's been tweaked > over the years to try to avoid some nasty behaviour. I'm really hoping > that RSDL would be a lot better (and by all accounts it has the potential > for that), but I think it's totally naïve to expect that it won't need > some tweaking too. Aside from ia boosting, I think fixed latencies per nice levels may be desirable, when physically possible, to allow for more deterministic scheduling. > So I'll happily still merge RSDL right after 2.6.21 (and it won't even be > a config option - if we want to make it good, we need to make sure > *everybody* tests it), but what I want to see is that "can do" spirit wrt > tweaking for issues that come up. > > Because let's face it - nothing is ever perfect. Even a really nice > conceptual idea always ends up hitting the "but in real life, things are > ugly and complex, and we've depended on behaviour X in the past and can't > change it, so we need some tweaking for problem Y". > > And everything is totally fixable - at least as long as people are willing > to! Agreed. Thanks! -- Al