Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Sun Apr 29 2007 - 06:20:50 EST

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 19:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> > > >
> > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it
> > > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?
> > >
> > > In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike encountered a
> > > problem that nobody could reproduce. [...]
> >
> > actually, Mark Lord too reproduced something similar to Mike's results.
> > Please try those workloads yourself.
> I see no suggestion that either Mark or Mike have tested, or for that matter
> _have any intention of testing_, the current version of SD without fancy
> renicing or anything involved. Willy I grealy appreciate you trying, but I
> don't know why you're bothering even trying here since clearly 1. Ingo is the
> scheduler maintainer 2. he's working on a competing implementation and 3. in
> my excellent physical and mental state I seem to have slighted the two
> testers (both?) somewhere along the line. Mike feels his testing was a
> complete waste of time yet it would be ludicrous for me to say that SD didn't
> evolve 20 versions further due to his earlier testing, and was the impetus
> for you to start work on CFS. The crunch came that we couldn't agree that
> fair was appropriate for mainline and we parted ways. That fairness has not
> been a problem for his view on CFS though but he has only tested older
> versions of SD that still had bugs.

The crunch for me came when you started hand-waving and spin-doctoring
as you are doing now. Listening to twisted echoes of my voice is not my
idea of a good time.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at