linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:33:12 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:27:28AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. 
> > > Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but 
> > > when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively 
> > > end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint).
> > > About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing 
> > > material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course).
> > 
> > The trouble with thorough testing right now is that no one agrees on
> > what the tests should be and a number of the testcases are not in great
> > shape. An agreed-upon set of testcases for basic correctness should be
> > devised and the implementations of those testcases need to be
> > maintainable code and the tests set up for automated testing and
> > changing their parameters without recompiling via command-line options.
> > 
> > Once there's a standard regression test suite for correctness, one
> > needs to be devised for performance, including interactive performance.
> > The primary difficulty I see along these lines is finding a way to
> > automate tests of graphics and input device response performance. Others,
> > like how deterministically priorities are respected over progressively
> > smaller time intervals and noninteractive workload performance are
> > nowhere near as difficult to arrange and in many cases already exist.
> > Just reuse SDET, AIM7/AIM9, OAST, contest, interbench, et al.
> 
> What I meant was, that the rules (requirements and associated test cases) 
> for this new Scheduler Amazing Race should be set forward, and not kept a 
> moving target to fit&follow one or the other implementation.

Exactly. Well I don't mind if it is a moving target as such, just as
long as the decisions are rational (no "blah is more important
because I say so").
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/