From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933409AbXCIWSe (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:18:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752767AbXCIWSd (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:18:33 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]:15234 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752766AbXCIWSc (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:18:32 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UoZ38WSLe100QV0mY2FeBT2A5E+Vo72KbyJzpWNx12mX4tsmmq/PSP82i7SpHnQMeWBU336Kydg3QqgAsEqzz37M/HNHb7VrdFw/tG15rDsgHTJpawJQ3r5nnUcAKW4ZMRm91O8qDrPZ6boMUnFHkqkHDW+M8lj7GE7BpQoTVQc= Message-ID: <48f7fe350703091418p133a955ar8bef47db33a42e3f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:18:31 -0500 From: "Ryan Hope" To: "Al Boldi" Subject: Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler) Cc: "William Lee Irwin III" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200703092343.46276.a1426z@gawab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200703091625.55361.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070309135751.GE2986@holomorphy.com> <200703092343.46276.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched schedulers because they have to share code.... even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to choose which one was built into the kernel would be easy (only takes a few ifdefs), i too think competition would be good On 3/9/07, Al Boldi wrote: > 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 > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >