[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239277099.7647.345.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:38:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Static/Runtime CPU/IO bound scheduling polices based on
CPU(s) to support complete spectrum of tasks
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:56 +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 17:02 +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:55:31PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > > I am planning to prepare the followings:
> > >
> > > This seems all quite vague. Perhaps it would be good if you started
> > > with a clear definition what problem you're trying to solve.
> > >
> >
>
> I do not surprise, if this approach seems vague to many developers
> because this is many years ahead of time.
Yes, or not.
For partitioning we have cpusets, for scheduler policies we have
sched_setscheduler().
The only thing we do not have are deadline schedulers, but people are
working on that -- its a rather complex piece of work.
The rest of you babbling is hand-waving about heuristics.
--
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