Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: modifying CFS failure | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:22:03 +0200 |
| |
Please provide it as a series of patches against sched-devel/latest.
Just plain AVL code and a huge modified CFS backport make it impossible to tell what changed and why.
Which brings us to the question: _why_. That is, why are you trying to replace the rb-tree with an avl tree? Just because the worst case depth of the avl is slightly better than for an rb-tree, which can be offset by the slightl more expesive balance operations.
I'm glad people are working on CFS - its an interesting piece of the kernel after all, but provide it in a regular patch series, this is impossible to work with, sorry.
| |