Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:32:14 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
Cc: kernel@kolivas.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dynamic sched timeslices
Message-Id: <20040317163214.16c943c5.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040318002027.GO20121@tpkurt.garloff.de>
References: <20040315224201.GX4452@tpkurt.garloff.de>
	<200403170013.38140.kernel@kolivas.org>
	<20040316142957.GX4452@tpkurt.garloff.de>
	<200403170745.02538.kernel@kolivas.org>
	<20040318002027.GO20121@tpkurt.garloff.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1104
Lines: 26

Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Con,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 07:45:02AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > That's why I think we should offer the tunables.
> > 
> > If your workload is so dedicated to just number crunching it isn't hard to add 
> > a zero to maximum timeslice in kernel/sced.c. 
> 
> Of course I can compile a custom kernel for myself and tune all sorts of
> things. But this is not the way most Linux users want to use Linux any
> more. Actually that's a long time ago.
> 

I don't think we should be averse to offering a couple of nice high-level
scheduler tunables.  But I do think we should have testing results which
clearly show that they provide some benefit, and we should agree that the
scheduler cannot provide the same benefit automagically.

Apologies in advance if we've seen those testing results and I missed it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/