public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: mpm@selenic.com, paul@linuxaudiosystems.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.X, NPTL, SCHED_FIFO and JACK
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:45:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040702004538.GF21066@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040701154554.30063e97.akpm@osdl.org>

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> In fairness, the CPU scheduler has been spinning like a top for a
> couple of years, and it still ain't settled.
> That's just the one in Linus's tree, let alone the umpteen rewrites
> which are floating about.

I've not seen much deep material there. Policy tweaks seem to be
what's gone on in mainline, and frankly most of the purported rewrites
are just that. I guess the ones that nuked the duelling queue silliness
are trying qualify but even they're leaving the load balancer untouched
and are carrying over large fractions of their predecessors unaltered.
The stuff that's gone around looks minor. It's not like they're teaching
sched.c to play cpu tetris for gang scheduling or Kalman filtering
profiling feedback to stripe tasks using different cpu resources across
SMT siblings or playing graph games to meet RT deadlines, so it doesn't
look like very much at all is going on to me.

It's pretty obvious why everyone and their brother is grinding out
purported scheduler rewrites: the code is self-contained, however,
nothing interesting is coming of all this. Never been for have so many
patches been written against the same file, accomplishing so little.

-- wli

  reply	other threads:[~2004-07-02  0:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-06-30 13:41 2.6.X, NPTL, SCHED_FIFO and JACK Paul Davis
2004-06-30 15:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-06-30 15:18   ` Ingo Molnar
2004-06-30 15:26   ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-06-30 16:32     ` Paul Davis
2004-06-30 16:57       ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-06-30 17:52         ` Paul Davis
2004-06-30 15:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-06-30 16:12   ` Paul Davis
2004-06-30 17:07     ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-06-30 17:50       ` Paul Davis
2004-07-01 18:03 ` Matt Mackall
2004-07-01 18:14   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-01 22:45     ` Andrew Morton
2004-07-02  0:45       ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-07-02  1:38         ` Peter Williams
2004-07-02  2:53           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-02  3:03         ` Con Kolivas
2004-07-02  3:05           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-02  3:27     ` Paul Davis
2004-07-02  7:37       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-02 10:40         ` Takashi Iwai
2004-07-06  0:48           ` Peter Williams
2004-07-02 14:42         ` Paul Davis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040702004538.GF21066@holomorphy.com \
    --to=wli@holomorphy.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=paul@linuxaudiosystems.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox