[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177834277.6264.44.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:11:17 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....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>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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 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.
While I haven't tested recent SD versions, unless it's design has
radically changed recently, I know what to expect. CFS is giving me a
very high quality experience already (it's at a whopping v7), while
RSDL/SD irritated me greatly at version v40. As far as I'm concerned,
CFS is the superior target, short-term, long-term whatever-term. For
the tree where I make the decisions, the hammer has fallen, and RSDL/SD
is history. Heck, I'm _almost_ ready to rm -rf my own scheduler trees
as well... I could really use some free disk space.
-Mike
-
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