From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262442AbTEVBbv (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 21:31:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262444AbTEVBbv (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 21:31:51 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:41370 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262442AbTEVBbu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 21:31:50 -0400 To: "Martin J. Bligh" cc: "Nakajima, Jun" , jamesclv@us.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, pbadari@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, mannthey@us.ibm.com Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: userspace irq balancer In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 21 May 2003 18:28:56 PDT. <58830000.1053566935@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2134.1053567886.1@us.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:44:46 -0700 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 May 2003 18:28:56 PDT, "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > Yeah, I suppose this userland policy change means we should pull > > the scheduler policy decisions out of the kernel and write user level > > HT, NUMA, SMP and UP schedulers. Also, the IO schedulers should > > probably be pulled out - I'm sure AS and CFQ and linus_scheduler > > could be user land policies, as well as the elevator. Memory > > placement and swapping policies, too. > > > > Oh, wait, some people actually do this - they call it, what, > > Workload Management or some such thing. But I don't know any > > style of workload management that leaves *no* default, semi-sane > > policy in the kernel. > > I think the word you're groping for here is "microkernel". > > M. Oh, yeah. Page replacement policy in user level. That one was a real winner. gerrit