From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767493AbXCIUkm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:40:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767495AbXCIUkm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:40:42 -0500 Received: from [212.12.190.74] ([212.12.190.74]:32921 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767493AbXCIUkk (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:40:40 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:43:46 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200703091625.55361.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070309135751.GE2986@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20070309135751.GE2986@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200703092343.46276.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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