From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759185AbXG2AEh (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:04:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758155AbXG2AE3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:04:29 -0400 Received: from mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.188]:36961 "EHLO mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758145AbXG2AE2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:04:28 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: ck@vds.kolivas.org Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1 Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:03:52 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Linus Torvalds , jos poortvliet , Michael Chang , Kasper Sandberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200707282128.39906.jos@mijnkamer.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707291003.52817.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's quite hard to do. A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's _interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was chosen over SD (hint: it wasn't). Since it's generating good discussion I'll otherwise leave it as is. As a parting gesture; a couple of hints for CFS. Any difference in behaviour between CFS and SD since they both aim for fairness would come down to the way they interpret fair. Since CFS accounts sleep time whereas SD does not, that would be the reason. As for volanomark regressions, they're always the sched_yield implementation. SD addressed a similar regression a few months back. Good luck. -- -ck