On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:53:36PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the > > kernel in interesting ways. > > This is a WTF if ever I saw one.
You should look at the progression of SD versus CFS. You'll find the exact opposite has happened and it's kind of baffling that you'd say something like that. So I don't know what is coloring your experiences with this. SD is highly regular patch and cleanly applies into that portion of the kernel. Folks have been asking from some kind of pluggability for this kind of development for years and had it repeatedly blocked in various ways. So this seems quite odd that you'd say something like that. bill - 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/
