Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:46:56 -0500 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32 |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote: >>>> Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of >>>> replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a low >>>> footprint scheduler. >>> It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either way. >>> To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want BFS, they >>> wouldn't patch it in the first place. >> BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for >> specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use). >> > > Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline > maintainers have already made it clear they do not. > Since your work is going in as a patch anyway, who is it that cares? The point is that I have one source which I compile with multiple config files, rather than multiple sources I get to patch with selected embellishments from -mm and -next and other places.
It would be great if the system could boot and run on a doorknob scheduler long enough to load a scheduling modules at boot time. But that's a second level gain to having a single source and compiling the hell out of it.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |