From: Nathan <wfilardo@fuse.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, 2.4.17-B0, 2.5.2-pre8-B0.
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:48:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C38D45B.20105@fuse.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201052232170.13672-100000@majere.epithna.com> <1010297456.3226.11.camel@phantasy>
Out of sheer curiosity (and this might be a stupid question), is there
any effort to make the following lines of development all work together:
RML's preempt-kernel and lock-break (and netdev, but that doesn't touch
the other stuff), Rick's rmap VM, and the O(1) scheduler? If so, is it
being applied to 2.4 or 2.5? (Definately seems 2.5-ish, but given that
all the patches are available for 2.4, I thought I'd ask.)
This system just got 2.4.18-pre1 with RML's preempt and Rick's rmap10c
patches. Seems stable though dbench 10 can take all responsiveness out
of KDE (though XMMS never skips). The O(1) scheduler did not apply, nor
did lock-break, otherwise I would be running with all of the above.
Are any of these actually mutually exclusive? (that is, am I just
wasting time and decreasing the s:n ratio on LKML?)
Thanks in advance.
--Nathan
Robert Love wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-01-05 at 22:34, listmail@majere.epithna.com wrote:
>
>>How close are you and Robert Love on getting this patch and his pre-emt
>>patches to co-operate...seems like that might bring huge wins. I know, I
>>know I could diff, and fix the rejects myself, but this seems to deep in
>>the kernel for a relative newbie like myself(plus I am more a file system
>>guy)
>>
>
>Unfortunately it looks like it is going to take a bit more than fixing
>trivial rejects. I started working on it today. I suspect I am going
>to need a lot better understanding of Ingo's scheduler, so I am learning
>it. I am traveling tomorrow but should be able to dive into it on
>Monday.
>
>Ingo and I both agree that the patches together are a Good Thing.
>
>I have a fully ported patch at this point but it hard locks on boot. I
>believe the problem to be a few bits in sched.c, but there may be some
>underlying changes that break assumptions elsewhere.
>
>We are working on it. Help is always appreciated, though ;)
>
> Robert Love
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-06 22:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-06 0:38 [patch] O(1) scheduler, 2.4.17-B0, 2.5.2-pre8-B0 Ingo Molnar
2002-01-05 23:35 ` Pawel Kot
2002-01-06 1:04 ` [patch] O(1) scheduler, 2.5.2-pre9-B1 Ingo Molnar
2002-01-06 12:49 ` O(1) scheduler, 2.5.2-pre9-B1 results Anton Blanchard
2002-01-06 18:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-06 3:34 ` [patch] O(1) scheduler, 2.4.17-B0, 2.5.2-pre8-B0 listmail
2002-01-06 6:10 ` Robert Love
2002-01-06 22:48 ` Nathan [this message]
2002-01-08 16:54 ` george anzinger
2002-01-08 18:05 ` Rik van Riel
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=3C38D45B.20105@fuse.net \
--to=wfilardo@fuse.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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