From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched.c : procfs tunables
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:43:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1144068196.8083.30.camel@homer>
References: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com>
	 <200604010044.09185.kernel@kolivas.org>
	 <200604031459.43105.a1426z@gawab.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-smp-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200604031459.43105.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-smp-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-smp.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-smp@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 14:59 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Are you implying that the code is built around these tunables rather than 
> using them?

I'm not implying anything, I'm merely stating my opinion: these knobs
have subtle effects which render them unsuitable for export.

	-Mike