linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

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: <1177847954.5791.98.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:59:13 +0200
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> 
> Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
> a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate
> solution relying on a more solid framework.

That's the whole reason why I don't see any usefulness in merging SD
now. When we merge SD now, then we need to care of both - the real
solution and the fixup of regressions. Right now we have a not perfect
scheduler with known weak points. Ripping it out and replacing it is
going to introduce regressions, what ever low risk you see.

And I still do not see a benefit of an intermediate step with a in my
opinion medium to high risk of regressions, instead of going the full
way, when we agree that this is the correct solution.

	tglx


-
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/