Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy

[Nick Piggin]

Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> > Hi,
> > Patch against 2.6.0-test4. It fixes a lot of problems here vs
> > previous versions. There aren't really any open issues for me, so
> > testers would be welcome.
> ...
>
> > On the other hand, I expect the best cases and maybe most usual cases would
> > be better on Con's... and Con might have since done some work in the latency
> > area.
>
> Has anyone developed a (run-time) scheduler [policy] selector, via
> sysctl or sysfs, so that different kernel builds aren't required?
>
> I know that I have heard discussions of this previously.

Not that I know of. This would probably require an extra layer of
indirection in the standard form of Linux's struct of pointers to
functions, with your standard schedule functions as wrappers.
I think it would be highly unlikely that this would get into a
standard kernel, but might make a nice testing tool...

In fact this might end up being incompatible with architectures
like SPARC... but I'm sure someone could make it work if they really
wanted to.

I think the present boot-time selector (selecting different kernels
at boot) will have to suffice for now :P


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/