[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070417062621.GL2986@holomorphy.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:26:21 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: 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@...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 Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:09:55PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:15:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance
> (in all meanings of the word). That's only logical.
Any chance you'd be willing to put down a few thoughts on what sorts
of standards you'd like to set for both correctness (i.e. the bare
minimum a scheduler implementation must do to be considered valid
beyond not oopsing) and performance metrics (i.e. things that produce
numbers for each scheduler you can compare to say "this scheduler is
better than this other scheduler at this.").
-- wli
-
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