On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > 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). > > The trouble with thorough testing right now is that no one agrees on > what the tests should be and a number of the testcases are not in great > shape. An agreed-upon set of testcases for basic correctness should be > devised and the implementations of those testcases need to be > maintainable code and the tests set up for automated testing and > changing their parameters without recompiling via command-line options. > > Once there's a standard regression test suite for correctness, one > needs to be devised for performance, including interactive performance. > The primary difficulty I see along these lines is finding a way to > automate tests of graphics and input device response performance. Others, > like how deterministically priorities are respected over progressively > smaller time intervals and noninteractive workload performance are > nowhere near as difficult to arrange and in many cases already exist. > Just reuse SDET, AIM7/AIM9, OAST, contest, interbench, et al.
What I meant was, that the rules (requirements and associated test cases) for this new Scheduler Amazing Race should be set forward, and not kept a moving target to fit&follow one or the other implementation. - Davide - 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/
