From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261200AbVABA0R (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:26:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261202AbVABA0R (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:26:17 -0500 Received: from gizmo01ps.bigpond.com ([144.140.71.11]:63883 "HELO gizmo01ps.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261200AbVABA0O (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:26:14 -0500 Message-ID: <41D73FA2.4000705@bigpond.net.au> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:26:10 +1100 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041127) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Davidsen CC: Andrew Morton , Paolo Ciarrocchi , kernel@kolivas.org, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Trying out SCHED_BATCH References: <4d8e3fd304122923127167067c@mail.gmail.com> <20041229232028.055f8786.akpm@osdl.org> <41D429C3.8010805@tmr.com> In-Reply-To: <41D429C3.8010805@tmr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bill Davidsen wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: >> >>> Andrew, what's your plan for the staircase scheduler ? >> >> >> >> I have none, frankly. I haven't seen any complaints about the current >> scheduler. >> >> If someone can identify bad behaviour in the current scheduler which >> staircase improves then please describe a tescase which the scheduler >> developers can use to reproduce the situation. > > > Of course that may result in just another band-aid on the current > scheduler rather than a change. > >> >> If, after that, we deem that the problem cannot be feasibly fixed >> within the >> context of the current scheduler and that the problem is sufficiently >> serious to justify wholesale replacement of the scheduler then sure, >> staircase is an option. > > > More to the point, was there a problem with plugable schedulers? It > would be both technically and politically better to let people try, use, > and write schedulers for special case loads, just as we have for io > scheduling. > > I didn't find staircase to be the solution to any of my problems, but it > would be nice to let all the people who are improving schedulers have an > easy way to try new ideas (easier than building a whole new kernel, that > is). > At Con's request I've taken over responsibility for plugsched but I've been away visiting relatives for the last week or so and, therefore, I'm a little behind. I hope to release a plugsched patch for 2.6.10 in the next few days with a (work in progress) modification to share a lot more code between schedulers so that the amount of work required to implement new schedulers is reduced. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce