Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler)

[David Lang]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Al Boldi wrote:

> > My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
> > slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
> > design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
> > the x86 MMU decodes what was intended, or for a compiler to emit valid
> > assembly instructions, or for a programmer to write C the compiler
> > won't reject with parse errors.
>
> Sure, but I think, even from a technical point of view, competition is a good
> thing to have.  Pluggable schedulers give us this kind of competition, that
> forces each scheduler to refine or become obsolete.  Think evolution.

The point Linus is makeing is that with pluggable schedulers there isn't 
competition between them, the various developer teams would go off in their own 
direction and any drawbacks to their scheduler could be answered with "that's 
not what we are good at, use a different scheduler", with the very real 
possibility that a person could get this answer from ALL schedulers, leaving 
them with nothing good to use.

David Lang
-
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/