From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751789AbXDQHJ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:09:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751821AbXDQHJ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:09:57 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.93.40.71]:48789 "EHLO holomorphy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789AbXDQHJ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:09:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:09:49 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Nick Piggin , Peter Williams , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , Ingo Molnar , ck list , Bill Huey , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] Message-ID: <20070417070949.GR8915@holomorphy.com> References: <200704151327.13589.kernel@kolivas.org> <1176619384.6222.70.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <46240F98.3020800@bigpond.net.au> <1176776941.6222.21.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417034050.GD25513@wotan.suse.de> <46244A52.4000403@bigpond.net.au> <20070417042954.GG25513@wotan.suse.de> <20070417060955.GO8915@holomorphy.com> <20070417061503.GC1057@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > I had a quick look at Ingo's code yesterday. Ingo is always smart to > prepare a main dish (feature) with a nice sider (code cleanup) to Linus ;) > And even this code does that pretty nicely. The deadline designs looks > good, although I think the final "key" calculation code will end up quite > different from what it looks now. The additive nice_offset breaks nice levels. A multiplicative priority weighting of a different, nonnegative metric of cpu utilization from what's now used is required for nice levels to work. I've been trying to point this out politely by strongly suggesting testing whether nice levels work. On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. > Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but > when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively > end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint). > About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing > material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course). The trouble with thorough testing right now is that no one agrees on what the tests should be and a number of the testcases are not in great shape. An agreed-upon set of testcases for basic correctness should be devised and the implementations of those testcases need to be maintainable code and the tests set up for automated testing and changing their parameters without recompiling via command-line options. Once there's a standard regression test suite for correctness, one needs to be devised for performance, including interactive performance. The primary difficulty I see along these lines is finding a way to automate tests of graphics and input device response performance. Others, like how deterministically priorities are respected over progressively smaller time intervals and noninteractive workload performance are nowhere near as difficult to arrange and in many cases already exist. Just reuse SDET, AIM7/AIM9, OAST, contest, interbench, et al. -- wli