From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752969AbXCMAJf (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:09:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752974AbXCMAJe (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:09:34 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.243]:38433 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752970AbXCMAJd (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:09:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=nIO7itYg2RZdUiBjYydZidFuoFe8/1CfOS+kSeen9Jxewd00yELwQ2yU4HbZIJZ23sHAsS4Kw4ZQBrQG3voBQB4XpkCcVdK8jcsL7erUKgzaxWGDDKEAUWK/2ZczZ5EFies16bTEe91Zie6YcotV7rz5iKMvQniDvtXZtdkSfA0= Message-ID: <7d01f9f00703121709p66381704ic2dc10e90fdbf3d6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:09:33 +0100 From: "Thibaut VARENE" To: "michael chang" Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 Cc: "Con Kolivas" , "ck list" , "linux kernel mailing list" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200703111457.17624.kernel@kolivas.org> <200703130549.47058.kernel@kolivas.org> <1173730314.6431.30.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <200703130738.19034.kernel@kolivas.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3af48500bcb0a678 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/12/07, michael chang wrote: > Considering the concepts put out by projects such as BOINC and > SETI@Home, I wouldn't be thoroughly surprised by this ideology, > although I do question the particular way this test case is being run. If Con actually implements SCHED_IDLEPRIO in RSDL, life is good even in that case. > This seems to me like he's saying that there has to be a mechanism > (outside of nice) that can be used to treat processes that "I" want to > be interactive all special-like. It feels like something that would > have been said in the design of what the scheduler was in -ck and is > currently in vanilla. Exactly. Driving us again toward the fact that different workloads might benefit from different schedulers (eg: RSDL is cool for server loads, previous staircase did an excellent job on desktop, etc) and thus that having a choice of schedulers might be something that would satisfy (some) people... > To me, that fundamentally clashes with the design behind RSDL. That > said, I could be wrong -- Con appears to have something that could be > very promising up his sleeve that could come out sooner or later. Once > he's written it, of course. In any case, RSDL seems very promising, > for the most part. It certainly is. "Negative" feedback can be a good thing too, as it helps improving it anyway. It's nonetheless true that it's practically impossible to satisfy 100% of use case with a single design, so choices will have to be made. HTH T-Bone -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/