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: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:09:14 +0200 From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com> To: "Con Kolivas" <kernel@...ivas.org> Cc: "Willy Tarreau" <w@....eu>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "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, "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 4/29/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org> wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Willy, > > > > > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for > > > > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the > > > > feeling that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has > > > > not tested recent versions. Don't get me wrong, I still think that CFS > > > > is a more interesting long-term target. But it may require more time to > > > > satisfy everyone. At least with one of them in 2.6.22, we won't waste > > > > time comparing to current mainline. > > > > > > Oh no, we really do _NOT_ want to throw SD or anything else at mainline > > > in a hurry just for not wasting time on comparing to the current > > > scheduler. > > > > It is not about doing it in a hurry. I see SD as a small yet efficient > > update to current scheduler. It's not perfect, probably not much extensible > > but the risks of breaking anything are small given the fact that it does > > not change much of the code or behaviour. > > > > IMHO, it is something which can provide users with a useful update while > > leaving us with some more time to carefully implement the features of CFS > > one at a time, and if it requires 5 versions, it's not a problem. > > > > > I agree that CFS is the more interesting target and I prefer to push the > > > more interesting one even if it takes a release cycle longer. The main > > > reason for me is the design of CFS. Even if it is not really modular > > > right now, it is not rocket science to make it fully modular. > > > > > > Looking at the areas where people work on, e.g. containers, resource > > > management, cpu isolation, fully tickless systems ...., we really need > > > to go into that direction, when we want to avoid permanent tinkering in > > > the core scheduler code for the next five years. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the > > > kernel in interesting ways. > > > > Hmmm I guess you confused both of them this time. CFS touches many places, > > which is why I think the testing coverage is still very low. SD can be > > tested faster. My real concern is : are there still people observing > > regressions with it ? If yes, they should be fixed before even being > > merged. If no, why not merge it as a fix for the many known corner cases > > of current scheduler ? After all, it's already in -mm. > > > > Willy > > Willy, you're making far too much sense. Are you replying to the correct > mailing list? FWIW, I strongly agree with Willy. Ciao, -- Paolo "Tutto cio' che merita di essere fatto,merita di essere fatto bene" Philip Stanhope IV conte di Chesterfield - 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