Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:15 PM:
> Adrian Bunk wrote, On 11/27/2007 05:47 PM:
...
>> There is nothing like a "right of choice".
(very late) PS:
...I was a bit confused with this, wondering: so, we've envied you
(the West) this "thing" for so many years, and now it seems, you ha
Adrian Bunk wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:53 PM:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> Most Google hits are about abortion.
>
> The fact that people use this term in some completely different
> context does not give it the meaning you implied it had.
>
> Oh, and th
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:02:08AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:15 PM:
> ...
>
> > Otherwise it's not so hard to overlook some stagnation.
>
> Btw., after this 'forking' thing etc. it seems I might have lost the point
> a little: which removed choices sh
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:15 PM:
...
> Otherwise it's not so hard to overlook some stagnation.
Btw., after this 'forking' thing etc. it seems I might have lost the point
a little: which removed choices should justify such a fork. But, I hope,
you didn't mean your patch only, because
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote, On 11/27/2007 05:47 PM:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 08:09:12AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >> On 25-11-2007 18:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> ...
> Is there an
Adrian Bunk wrote, On 11/27/2007 05:47 PM:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 08:09:12AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On 25-11-2007 18:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> ...
Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
>>> Until we have
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 08:09:12AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 25-11-2007 18:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ...
> >> Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
> >
> > Until we have the perfect scheduler :-)
>
> IMHO this i
On 25-11-2007 18:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
>> Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
>
> Until we have the perfect scheduler :-)
IMHO this is not enough yet. There is something called "the right
of choice", and, it seems,
Andrew Morton wrote:
> (cc's lovingly restored. Please do not do that)
Thanks! I'm replying off list.
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:57:00 +0300 Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Is there any technical reason why we need 4
(cc's lovingly restored. Please do not do that)
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:57:00 +0300 Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
> >
> > Until we have the perfect
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at all?
>
> Until we have the perfect scheduler :-)
>
> With some hard work and testing, we should be able to get rid of 'as'.
> It still beats cfq for some of the worklo
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:56:54 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at
> all?
>
there is at least one technical reason to need more than one: certain
types of storage (both big EMC boxes as well as solid state disks)
don't
On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:45:32PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > > There isn't any big advantage
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:45:32PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
> > > > mod
On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
> > > modular schedulers.
> > >
> > > OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
> > modular schedulers.
> >
> > OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image of an x86 defconfig (that
> > doesn't use modular
On Sun, Nov 25 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
> modular schedulers.
>
> OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image of an x86 defconfig (that
> doesn't use modular schedulers) bigger by nearly 2 kB.
Big nack, I use it all the time for
There isn't any big advantage and doesn't seem to be much usage of
modular schedulers.
OTOH, the overhead made the kernel image of an x86 defconfig (that
doesn't use modular schedulers) bigger by nearly 2 kB.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
block/Kconfig.iosched| 12
18 matches
Mail list logo
