On ven, 2014-03-21 at 08:25 -0400, Nate Studer wrote:
> On 3/21/2014 7:16 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:

> > If you intend in a future non-RFC version of this series to do something
> > like that then we can follow that path at that time.
>
> Thanks for the information Ian.
>
> This is the intention, so we would prefer the LIBXL_HAVE_NEW_SCHED_THING path.
> It seems cleaner.
>
> We just wanted to make sure that there were no major objections to re-purposing
> the sedf scheduler before we went too far down that path, and so far we have not
> seen anybody step up to defend the sedf scheduler.
>

Well, TBH, seeing someone standing up to defend it as it is now would
have been very surprising, from my point of view. :-)

As I said, we really want something that is working, easier to maintain,
extensible and more advanced, and I think you're putting efforts in the
right direction" simplifying the current implementation is absolutely
necessary, given its super-broken status.

So, unless someone starts screaming really soon, I'd say "go ahead".

The one thing I'd like to see, as I already said, is whether, once we'll
have simplified it, and once it will get to enhance it (back), we could
collaborate with the RT-Xen people.

They already have an EDF scheduler which supports multiple budgetting
algorithms, so I'm hoping that we can at least learn from their
experience, if not (and let's see why not) borrow/upstream some of their
code.

If you think it would be useful, I'm up for setting up a call between
me, you, Sisu, and everyone hat is interested. Just let me know.

Regards,
Dario

--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)