* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it'd be a good idea to merge scheduler classes before changing >> over the policy so future changes to policy have smaller code impact. >> Basically, get scheduler classes going with the mainline scheduler.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i've got a split up patch for the class stuff already, but lets first > get some wider test-coverage before even thinking about upstream > integration. This is all v2.6.22 stuff at the earliest. I'd like to get some regression testing (standard macrobenchmarks) in on the scheduler class bits in isolation, as they do have rather non-negligible impacts on load balancing code, to changes in which such macrobenchmarks are quite sensitive. This shouldn't take much more than kicking off a benchmark on an internal box at work already set up to do such testing routinely. I won't need to write any fresh testcases etc. for it. Availability of the test systems may have to wait until Monday, since various people not wanting benchmarks disturbed are likely to be out for the weekend. It would also be beneficial for the other schedulers to be able to standardize on the scheduling class framework as far in advance as possible. In such a manner comparative testing by end-users and more industrial regression testing can be facilitated. -- wli - 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/
