Hi Andi, On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:16:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > I thought it was clear that rip everything out is rarely a good idea > in Linux land? That's really not something I should need to harp on > repeatedly.
I'm going to change topic big time because your sentence above perfectly applies to the O(1) scheduler too. It's not like process schedulers are sacred and there shall be only one, while I/O schedulers and packet schedulers are profane and there can be many of them. FWIW IMHO the right way would have been to make the new scheduler pluggable and switchable at runtime, too bad it was ripped off instead. The difficulty of making the scheduler pluggable isn't really enormous, there have been patches floating around to achieve it, some I even deal with them myself once. The only positive side of being forced to CFS I can imagine, is that more testing will make it more stable and more tuned more quickly. But I'm fairly certain Ingo's good enough to achieve without it, perhaps with a few more weeks. Personally I very much like the unfariness of O(1), I'm afraid CFS will overschedule under a certain number of workloads in its attempt to provide a complete fair queieing at all costs, and it won't deal with the X server as nicely as O(1), but I may as well be wrong. The only thing I'm more sure about is that the computational complexity is higher, and that reason alone is a good technical reason to provide both and let the java folks stick with O(1) if they want. - 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/
