Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932583AbWBYDb2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:31:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932596AbWBYDb2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:31:28 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36543 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932583AbWBYDb2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:31:28 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc4-mm1] Task Throttling V14 From: MIke Galbraith To: Nick Piggin Cc: Con Kolivas , Peter Williams , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, "Chen, Kenneth W" In-Reply-To: <43FFCA30.9040008@yahoo.com.au> References: <1140183903.14128.77.camel@homer> <43FFAFE9.8000206@bigpond.net.au> <43FFC411.8010106@yahoo.com.au> <200602251357.24665.kernel@kolivas.org> <43FFCA30.9040008@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:35:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1140838507.8559.2.camel@homer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1599 Lines: 37 On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 14:08 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Saturday 25 February 2006 13:42, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>I tried this angle years ago and it didn't work :) > > > > > > Our "2.6 forever" policy is why we're stuck with this approach. We tried > > alternative implementations in -mm for a while but like all alternatives they > > need truckloads more testing to see if they provide a real advantage and > > don't cause any regressions. This made it impossible to seriously consider > > any alternatives. > > > > I hacked on and pushed plugsched in an attempt to make it possible to work on > > an alternative implementation that would make the transition possible in a > > stable series. This was vetoed by Linus and Ingo and yourself for the reason > > it dilutes developer effort on the current scheduler. Which leaves us with > > only continually polishing what is already in place. > > > > Yes. Hence my one-liner. > > I still don't think plugsched is that good of an idea for mainline. > Not too many people seem to be unhappy with the scheduler we have, > so just because this little problem comes up I don't think that > means it's time to give up and merge plugsched and 10 other policies. Agreed. The problem is small. Annoying, because it refuses to go away, but it is a small problem. -Mike - 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/