From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755142AbXD2KUP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:20:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755143AbXD2KUP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:20:15 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45951 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755142AbXD2KUA (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:20:00 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19jjOtyBYxjIMsDKfjTSjay27Wy669KIP0CsDnjWj 2rjSN6rQNFh6xu Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 From: Mike Galbraith To: Con Kolivas Cc: Ingo Molnar , Willy Tarreau , Kasper Sandberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Gene Heskett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr, Mark Lord , Zach Carter , buddabrod In-Reply-To: <200704291952.22840.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <1177618164.14496.5.camel@localhost> <20070429073819.GD23638@1wt.eu> <20070429080028.GA9988@elte.hu> <200704291952.22840.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:19:51 +0200 Message-Id: <1177841991.8943.18.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 19:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] > > > > > > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it > > > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46? > > > > > > In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike encountered a > > > problem that nobody could reproduce. [...] > > > > actually, Mark Lord too reproduced something similar to Mike's results. > > Please try those workloads yourself. > > I see no suggestion that either Mark or Mike have tested, or for that matter > _have any intention of testing_, the current version of SD without fancy > renicing or anything involved. Willy I grealy appreciate you trying, but I > don't know why you're bothering even trying here since clearly 1. Ingo is the > scheduler maintainer 2. he's working on a competing implementation and 3. in > my excellent physical and mental state I seem to have slighted the two > testers (both?) somewhere along the line. Mike feels his testing was a > complete waste of time yet it would be ludicrous for me to say that SD didn't > evolve 20 versions further due to his earlier testing, and was the impetus > for you to start work on CFS. The crunch came that we couldn't agree that > fair was appropriate for mainline and we parted ways. That fairness has not > been a problem for his view on CFS though but he has only tested older > versions of SD that still had bugs. The crunch for me came when you started hand-waving and spin-doctoring as you are doing now. Listening to twisted echoes of my voice is not my idea of a good time. -Mike