lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][plugsched 0/28] Pluggable cpu scheduler framework
Date
Hi, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I believe that by compartmenting in the wrong way [*] we kill the
> natural integration effects. We'd end up with 5 (or 20) bad generic
> schedulers that happen to work in one precise workload only, but there
> would not be enough push to build one good generic scheduler, because
> the people who are now forced to care about the Linux scheduler would be
> content about their specialized schedulers.

I don't think so. There are multiple attempts to build a better
generic scheduler (Con's for one), so there's your counterexample right
here. However, testing a different scheduler currently requires a kernel
recompile and a reboot.

I hate that. Ideally, the scheduler would be hotpluggable... but I can
live with a reboot. I don't think a kernel recompile to switch schedulers
makes sense, though, so I for one am likely not to bother. So far.

You can't actually develop a better scheduler if people need to go too
far out of their way to compare them.

--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@smurf.noris.de

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.122 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site