Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc4-mm1] Task Throttling V14

Nick Piggin
2006-02-25T02:42:33Z

Peter Williams wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Not many comments came back, zero actually.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's because everyone's terribly busy chasing down those final bugs
>> so we
>> get a really great 2.6.16 release (heh, I kill me).
>>
>> I'm a bit reluctant to add changes like this until we get the smpnice
>> stuff
>> settled down and validated. I guess that means once Ken's run all his
>> performance tests across it.
>>
>> Of course, if Ken does his testing with just mainline+smpnice then any
>> coupling becomes less of a problem. But I would like to see some
>> feedback
>> from the other sched developers first.
>
>
> Personally, I'd rather see PlugSched merged in and this patch be used to
> create a new scheduler inside PlugSched. But I'm biased :-)
>
> As I see it, the problem that this patch is addressing is caused by the
> fact that the current scheduler is overly complicated. This patch just
> makes it more complicated. Some of the schedulers in PlugSched already
> handle this problem adequately and some of them are simpler than the
> current scheduler -- the intersection of these two sets is not empty.
>
> So now that it's been acknowledged that the current scheduler has
> problems, I think that we should be looking at other solutions in
> addition to just making the current one more complicated.
>

I tried this angle years ago and it didn't work :)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com