From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [RFC] sched.c : procfs tunables Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:49:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1143859779.7762.56.camel@homer> References: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-smp-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Al Boldi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-smp@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 17:23 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Proper scheduling in a multi-tasking environment is critical to the success > of a desktop OS. Linux, being mainly a server OS, is currently tuned to > scheduling defaults that may be appropriate only for the server scenario. > > To enable Linux to play an effective role on the desktop, a more flexible > approach is necessary. An approach that would allow the end-User the > freedom to adjust the OS to the specific environment at hand. > > So instead of forcing a one-size fits all approach on the end-User, would not > exporting sched.c tunables to the procfs present a flexible approach to the > scheduling dilemma? Nope, not the existing tunables anyway. The full effect of even a tiny scheduler knob tweak is hard to predict even if you've studied the code carefully. These knobs are just not generic enough to be exposed IMHO. -Mike