Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

[Bill Davidsen]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of
> > > > replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a low
> > > > footprint scheduler.
> > > It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either way.
> > > To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want BFS, they
> > > wouldn't patch it in the first place.
> > BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for
> > specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use).
>
> Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline 
> maintainers have already made it clear they do not.
Since your work is going in as a patch anyway, who is it that cares? The point 
is that I have one source which I compile with multiple config files, rather 
than multiple sources I get to patch with selected embellishments from -mm and 
-next and other places.

It would be great if the system could boot and run on a doorknob scheduler long 
enough to load a scheduling modules at boot time. But that's a second level gain 
to having a single source and compiling the hell out of it.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

--
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/