From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752205AbXDQH16 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:27:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752068AbXDQH16 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:27:58 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:4729 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752205AbXDQH1w (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:27:52 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:27:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: William Lee Irwin III cc: Nick Piggin , Peter Williams , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , Ingo Molnar , ck list , Bill Huey , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] In-Reply-To: <20070417070949.GR8915@holomorphy.com> Message-ID: References: <200704151327.13589.kernel@kolivas.org> <1176619384.6222.70.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <46240F98.3020800@bigpond.net.au> <1176776941.6222.21.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417034050.GD25513@wotan.suse.de> <46244A52.4000403@bigpond.net.au> <20070417042954.GG25513@wotan.suse.de> <20070417060955.GO8915@holomorphy.com> <20070417061503.GC1057@wotan.suse.de> <20070417070949.GR8915@holomorphy.com> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. > > Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but > > when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively > > end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint). > > About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing > > material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course). > > The trouble with thorough testing right now is that no one agrees on > what the tests should be and a number of the testcases are not in great > shape. An agreed-upon set of testcases for basic correctness should be > devised and the implementations of those testcases need to be > maintainable code and the tests set up for automated testing and > changing their parameters without recompiling via command-line options. > > Once there's a standard regression test suite for correctness, one > needs to be devised for performance, including interactive performance. > The primary difficulty I see along these lines is finding a way to > automate tests of graphics and input device response performance. Others, > like how deterministically priorities are respected over progressively > smaller time intervals and noninteractive workload performance are > nowhere near as difficult to arrange and in many cases already exist. > Just reuse SDET, AIM7/AIM9, OAST, contest, interbench, et al. What I meant was, that the rules (requirements and associated test cases) for this new Scheduler Amazing Race should be set forward, and not kept a moving target to fit&follow one or the other implementation. - Davide