Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc4-mm1] Task Throttling V14

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Peter Williams wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>> MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Not many comments came back, zero actually.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's because everyone's terribly busy chasing down those final bugs 
>> so we
>> get a really great 2.6.16 release (heh, I kill me).
>>
>> I'm a bit reluctant to add changes like this until we get the smpnice 
>> stuff
>> settled down and validated.  I guess that means once Ken's run all his
>> performance tests across it.
>>
>> Of course, if Ken does his testing with just mainline+smpnice then any
>> coupling becomes less of a problem.  But I would like to see some 
>> feedback
>> from the other sched developers first.
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see PlugSched merged in and this patch be used to 
> create a new scheduler inside PlugSched.  But I'm biased :-)
> 
> As I see it, the problem that this patch is addressing is caused by the 
> fact that the current scheduler is overly complicated.  This patch just 
> makes it more complicated.  Some of the schedulers in PlugSched already 
> handle this problem adequately and some of them are simpler than the 
> current scheduler -- the intersection of these two sets is not empty.
> 
> So now that it's been acknowledged that the current scheduler has 
> problems, I think that we should be looking at other solutions in 
> addition to just making the current one more complicated.
> 

I tried this angle years ago and it didn't work :)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com