Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>> Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of
>>>> replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a low
>>>> footprint scheduler.
>>> It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either way.
>>> To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want BFS, they
>>> wouldn't patch it in the first place.
>> BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for
>> specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use).
>>
> 
> Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline 
> maintainers have already made it clear they do not.
> 
Since your work is going in as a patch anyway, who is it that cares? The point 
is that I have one source which I compile with multiple config files, rather 
than multiple sources I get to patch with selected embellishments from -mm and 
-next and other places.

It would be great if the system could boot and run on a doorknob scheduler long 
enough to load a scheduling modules at boot time. But that's a second level gain 
to having a single source and compiling the hell out of it.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot