Hi Nick, On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:29:54AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: (...) > And my scheduler for example cuts down the amount of policy code and > code size significantly. I haven't looked at Con's ones for a while, > but I believe they are also much more straightforward than mainline... > > For example, let's say all else is equal between them, then why would > we go with the O(logN) implementation rather than the O(1)?
Of course, if this is the case, the question will be raised. But as a general rule, I don't see much potential in O(1) to finely tune scheduling according to several criteria. In O(logN), you can adjust scheduling in realtime at a very low cost. Better processing of varying priorities or fork() comes to mind. Regards, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
