From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:02:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:02:51 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:57326 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:02:50 -0400 Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler vs 2.4.19-rc1 (question). From: Robert Love To: Rob Landley Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020702210905.687588B4@merlin.webofficenow.com> References: <20020702210905.687588B4@merlin.webofficenow.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 02 Jul 2002 15:05:05 -0700 Message-Id: <1025647505.11052.1320.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 08:33, Rob Landley wrote: > 1) The 2.4.18-pre8 patch is from February 7th. Is that really the latest one > for straight 2.4? If nobody's found even a typo in the thing for almost five > months, can we expect it in 2.4.20-pre1? That is the latest patch Ingo has. I have been generating 2.4 patches now and the latest (for 2.4.19-rc1) is at: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/sched/ingo-O1/sched-O1-rml-2.4.19-rc1-1.patch People have found bugs and there is still active development. The last patch being against 2.4.18-pre8 should not mean otherwise. Neither Ingo nor I plan to pursue the O(1) scheduler in 2.4, especially not starting with 2.4.20-pre. Enjoy it in 2.5 or get 2.4-ac or the above patch. > 2) Do the -ac patches bring the 2.4-mt O(1) up to the level that's in the -ac > tree, or are they against the -ac tree itself? I'd happily run the -ac tree > except it doesn't HAVE stable releases, it has "it compiled" releases which > do tend to be fairly stable but don't have nice clustering points where > enough people are running that particular variant that they can tell you what > the inevitable bugs actually are... I do not know if I agree with your view of 2.4-ac, but nonetheless I have kept the scheduler in there fairly up-to-date. The patches above of Ingo's will bring 2.4.19-pre10-ac2 up-to-date with the very latest code. > 3) Is any of the stuff in ingo's directory actually the latest version? I > know he wrote it, but I've watched about five other people patch it (Robert > Love, etc.), and I didn't keep close track at the time but I'm fairly certain > it was more recent than February. The 2.4-ac stuff is recent, obviously the 2.4.18-pre8 thing is a bit out of date. Ingo is still active in development, he just does not have the latest 2.4 stock patch. See mine above. > 4) What's with the version numbers? I don't THINK the "B3" patch backlevels > K3 in a more recent -ac version, especially since "B3" is dated july and "K3" > is dated february... I seem to have missed a curve somewhere... > > 5) Huh? Eh? Robert Love