Re: [PATCH][plugsched 0/28] Pluggable cpu scheduler framework

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> my main worry with this approach is not really overhead but the impact
> on scheduler development. 

> no problem even under the current model, and it has happened before. We
> made the scheduler itself easily 'rip-out-able' in 2.6 by decreasing the
> junction points between the scheduler and the rest of the system. Also,
> the current scheduler is no way cast into stone, we could easily end up
> having a different interactivity code within the scheduler, as a result
> of the various 'get rid of the two arrays' efforts currently underway.

Do you honestly think with the current "2.6 forever" development process 
that this is likely, even possible any more?

Given that fact, it means the current scheduler policy mechanism is 
effectively set in stone. Do you think we can polish the current 
scheduler enough to be, if not perfect, good enough for _every_ situation?

Noone said that if we have a plugsched infrastructure that we should 
instantly accept any scheduler.

Regards,
Con

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]