Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:08:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:08:41 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:48369 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:08:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:08:18 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Ingo Molnar , lkml Subject: Re: [patch] scheduler cache affinity improvement for 2.4 kernels Message-ID: <20011108180818.A23814@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Davide Libenzi , Ingo Molnar , lkml In-Reply-To: <20011108173458.C14468@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:09:29PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > > The MQ scheduler has the same roots of the proposed one but has a longest > > > fast path due the try to make global scheduling decisions at every > > > schedule. > > > > Ahh, so that's why it hasn't been adopted... > > Changing the scheduler is not easy ( not to code patches but to make > everyone agree on the need of changing it ) and as i already said, it's > easier to force my cat to have a bath instead of Linus to change the > scheduler :) > Hmm, let's see... You go to the trouble to keep to code tight, and cache optimized, even raid5 is choosing a little slower implementation for better cache properties, and then you go and kill it all with the scheduler... Yep, that makes sence. ;) 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/