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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0704162039540.1277@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	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 
 FairScheduler [CFS]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely
>     FairScheduler [CFS]
> 
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 05:40 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:29:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>>> Yup, and progress _is_ happening now, quite rapidly.
>>
>> Progress as in progress on Ingo's scheduler. I still don't know how we'd
>> decide when to replace the mainline scheduler or with what.
>>
>> I don't think we can say Ingo's is better than the alternatives, can we?
>
> No, that would require massive performance testing of all alternatives.
>
>> If there is some kind of bakeoff, then I'd like one of Con's designs to
>> be involved, and mine, and Peter's...
>
> The trouble with a bakeoff is that it's pretty darn hard to get people
> to test in the first place, and then comes weighting the subjective and
> hard performance numbers.  If they're close in numbers, do you go with
> the one which starts the least flamewars or what?

it's especially hard if the people doing the testing need to find the latest 
patch and apply it.

even having a compile-time option to switch between them at least means that the 
testers can have confidence that the various patches haven't bitrotted.

boot time options would be even better, but I understand from previous 
discussions I've watched that this is performance critical enough that the 
overhead of this would throw off the results.

David Lang
-
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/