Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

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).

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).

Anyway, I'll just keep plugging away,
Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce