On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like > > > > Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance > > (in all meanings of the word). That's only logical. > > I had a quick look at Ingo's code yesterday. Ingo is always smart to > prepare a main dish (feature) with a nice sider (code cleanup) to Linus ;) > And even this code does that pretty nicely. The deadline designs looks > good, although I think the final "key" calculation code will end up quite > different from what it looks now. > I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. > Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but > when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively > end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint). > About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing > material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course).
To be clear, I'm not saying O(logN) itself is a big problem. Type plot [10:100] x with lines, log(x) with lines, 1 with lines into gnuplot. I was just trying to point out that we need to evalute things. Considering how long we've had this scheduler with its known deficiencies, let's pick a new one wisely. - 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/
