Re: modifying CFS failure

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

Please provide it as a series of patches against sched-devel/latest.

Just plain AVL code and a huge modified CFS backport make it impossible
to tell what changed and why.

Which brings us to the question: _why_. That is, why are you trying to
replace the rb-tree with an avl tree? Just because the worst case depth
of the avl is slightly better than for an rb-tree, which can be offset
by the slightl more expesive balance operations.

I'm glad people are working on CFS - its an interesting piece of the
kernel after all, but provide it in a regular patch series, this is
impossible to work with, sorry.