From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:10:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:10:00 -0400 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:63759 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:09:24 -0400 Subject: Re: O(1) Scheduler from Ingo vs. O(1) Scheduler from Robert From: Robert Love To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 04 Oct 2002 11:15:09 -0400 Message-Id: <1033744512.909.73.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 11:17, Ingo Molnar wrote: > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > > say, can anyone explain me why $subject patches are so different? What > > exactly are the important differences, what patch should we use? > > well as far as i can tell Robert has put other stuff into his patch, which > isnt really part of the O(1) scheduler. So i'd call it "the O(1) scheduler > plus stuff". There should _not_ be other things in the patch aside from the scheduler. Those patches are based on Ingo's original 2.4 patches with back-ported fixes from 2.4-ac and 2.5. Unfortunately, at the moment the patch is a bit out of sync. The only 2.4 version of the scheduler I have been able to keep up-to-date is 2.4-ac... but the patch is not too bad. I think the reason my patches differ from Ingo's is that Ingo includes code that is not yet in mainline 2.5. For example, last I checked his patches had the SCHED_BATCH stuff, which is good, but I only want to put code that is in 2.5 already and tested. Robert Love