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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:28:24 -0500 From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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 Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:03:49AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > I'd prefer if we kept a single CPU scheduler in mainline, because I > think that simplifies analysis and focuses testing. I think you'll find something like 80-90% of the testing will be done on the default choice, even if other choices exist. So you really won't have much of a problem here. But when the only choice for other schedulers is to go out-of-tree, then only 1% of the people will try it out and those people are guaranteed to be the ones who saw scheduling problems in mainline. So the alternative won't end up getting any testing on many of the workloads that work fine in mainstream so their feedback won't tell you very much at all. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists