Re: [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation

[Peter Williams]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Have you considered submitting one to -mm* for wider testing?
> >
> > I've made patches available for 2.6.8-rc2-mm1 and I'll provide them for 
> > mm2 as soon as possible.  Is there something else I should be doing?
>
>
> I'll probably drop staircase soon, give nicksched a whizz for a couple of
> cycles.  You're welcome to join the queue ;)

OK, thanks.

> But let me re-repeat again that CPU scheduler problems tend to take a
> _long_ time to turn up - you make some change and two months later some
> person with a weird workload on expensive hardware hits a nasty corner
> case.  So I do think that we'd have to hit a nasty problem with the current
> scheduler to go making deep changes.
>
> Although most of the fragility has been in CPU/node/HT balancing rather
> than in the timeslice allocation area.  I assume you're not touching the
> former.

Correct.  No (algorithmic) changes have been made to load balancing type 
code.  There have been some modifications so that my statistics 
gathering copes with a task moving to different CPU and some 
modifications due to changes in data structures but these should not 
change the way that load balancing etc. work.

>  It's the desktop users who seem to be more affected by the
> timeslice allocation algorithms, and the testing turnaround is much faster
> there.

OK.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/