Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964838AbWCVXy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:54:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932467AbWCVXy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:54:56 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:34243 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932421AbWCVXyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:54:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:51:22 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Con Kolivas , Peter Williams , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "Chen, Kenneth W" , Mike Galbraith Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: cpu scheduler merge plans Message-Id: <20060322155122.2745649f.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1577 Lines: 44 So it's that time again. We need to decide which of the queued sched patches should be merged into 2.6.17. I have: sched-fix-task-interactivity-calculation.patch small-schedule-microoptimization.patch # sched-implement-smpnice.patch sched-smpnice-apply-review-suggestions.patch sched-smpnice-fix-average-load-per-run-queue-calculations.patch sched-store-weighted-load-on-up.patch sched-add-discrete-weighted-cpu-load-function.patch sched-add-above-background-load-function.patch # Suresh had problems # con: sched-cleanup_task_activated.patch sched-make_task_noninteractive_use_sleep_type.patch sched-dont_decrease_idle_sleep_avg.patch sched-include_noninteractive_sleep_in_idle_detect.patch sched-remove-on-runqueue-requeueing.patch sched-activate-sched-batch-expired.patch sched-reduce-overhead-of-calc_load.patch # sched-fix-interactive-task-starvation.patch # # "strange load balancing problems": pwil3058@bigpond.net.au sched-new-sched-domain-for-representing-multi-core.patch sched-fix-group-power-for-allnodes_domains.patch x86-dont-use-cpuid2-to-determine-cache-info-if-cpuid4-is-supported.patch I'm not sure what the "Suresh had problems" comment refers to - perhaps a now-removed patch. afaik, the load balancing problem which Peter observed remains unresolved. Has smpnice had appropriate testing for regressions? - 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/