From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: patch for virtual machine oriented scheduling(1) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:48:10 +0300 Message-ID: <49F42DDA.6040308@redhat.com> References: <820ac2e90904220749p70564f5bof51eb975a5b80959@mail.gmail.com> <49F094DD.6080703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <820ac2e90904231624l6e5f177wbbdef8b58ed96d4a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Theurer , anthony@codemonkey.ws, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu To: alex Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34709 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751868AbZDZJsV (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:48:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <820ac2e90904231624l6e5f177wbbdef8b58ed96d4a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: alex wrote: >> Just wondering, was it not possible to introduce a new scheduling class in >> the current scheduler? My impression was that the current scheduler was >> fairly modular and should allow this. >> >> -Andrew >> > The reasons are: > 1. I am afraid that modifications to the Linux scheduler might cause > unexpected effects, because it is a global one. > True, extra care is needed. > 2. an extra execution control solution like mine is the simplest one > to implement. > But it results in an overall more complex system. > 3. As far as I can see, the benefit of replacing Linux scheduler only > lies that as soon as a scheduling decision is made, it can be put into > practice immediately. I think this benefit is neglectable. > It also make maintenance easier, and brings the benefits to ordinary (non-kvm) processes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function