On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > The MQ scheduler has the same roots of the proposed one but has a longest
> > fast path due the try to make global scheduling decisions at every
> > schedule.
>
> Ahh, so that's why it hasn't been adopted...
Changing the scheduler is not easy ( not to code patches but to make
everyone agree on the need of changing it ) and as i already said, it's
easier to force my cat to have a bath instead of Linus to change the
scheduler :)
> > I'm in contact ( close contact coz we're both in Beaverton :) ) with IBM
> > guys to have the two scheduler tested on bigger machines if the proposed
> > scheduler will give some fruit.
> >
>
> >From what I've seen, it probably will...
>
> I hope something like this will go into 2.5...
>
> What do other unixes do in this case? Are there any commercial Unixes that
> have loose affinity like linux currently does? What about NT?
I can't say about NT.
I've tried a "cvs checkout" from cvs.microsoft.com but the running server
( Nimda-CVS running on port 2401 ) said me that, although I've full
read/write access on the repository, the server is busy scanning port 80s :)
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:00:20 EST