From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:43:46 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200703092343.46276.a1426z@gawab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070309135751.GE2986@holomorphy.com>
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
> >> therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
> >> code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
> >> use for it.
> >> There's my longwinded excuse for having originated that tidbit of code.
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > I've no idea what both of you are talking about.
>
> The short translation of my message for you is "Linus, please don't
> LART me too hard."
Right.
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > How can giving people the freedom of choice be in any way
> > counter-productive?
>
> This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.
How diplomatic.
> My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
> slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
> design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
> the x86 MMU decodes what was intended, or for a compiler to emit valid
> assembly instructions, or for a programmer to write C the compiler
> won't reject with parse errors.
Sure, but I think, even from a technical point of view, competition is a good
thing to have. Pluggable schedulers give us this kind of competition, that
forces each scheduler to refine or become obsolete. Think evolution.
> If Linus, akpm, et al object to the
> design, then invalid output was produced. Please refer to Linus, akpm,
> et al for these sorts of design concerns.
Point taken.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And hey, you can try to prove me wrong. Code talks. So far, nobody has
> really ever come close.
>
> So go and code it up, and show the end result. So far, nobody who actually
> *does* CPU schedulers have really wanted to do it, because they all want
> to muck around with their own private versions of the data structures.
What about PlugSched?
Thanks!
--
Al
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-09 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-09 13:25 Al Boldi
2007-03-09 13:57 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-03-09 20:43 ` Al Boldi [this message]
2007-03-09 22:18 ` Ryan Hope
2007-03-10 1:10 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-03-10 0:06 ` David Lang
2007-03-18 3:44 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-03-10 0:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-03-10 5:34 ` Al Boldi
2007-03-10 6:59 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-03-10 16:47 ` Al Boldi
2007-03-10 19:31 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200703092343.46276.a1426z@gawab.com \
--to=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®