Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755186AbXEBMYM (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:24:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755187AbXEBMYM (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:24:12 -0400 Received: from mail28.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.169]:59487 "EHLO mail28.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755186AbXEBMYL (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:24:11 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH][ 3/5] sched: implement staircase deadline cpu scheduler Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:23:51 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: linux kernel mailing list , ck list , Ingo Molnar References: <200703271210.39429.kernel@kolivas.org> <20070430115014.0fff7772.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070430115014.0fff7772.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705022223.51809.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1728 Lines: 36 On Tuesday 01 May 2007 04:50, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:10:39 +1100 > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler policy > > I'll be dropping this from -mm now. I don't think we're learning anything > more by having it in there and I generally want to get things more back > into sync. > > For the record, I don't recall any problem reports arising from SD's > presence in -mm (Except for possibly Jiri's recent "many processes end up > in D state", but we don't have a clue what's causing that yet). Thanks. It was a worthwhile putting it in -mm anyway because it allowed me to shake up a lot of bugs and stabilise it. Now SD will stick around for comparison. It also appears to me, having discussed with many people now, that hardly anyone understands how it actually works. In summary it is an O(1) dual array bitmap lookup based system for creating a minimal overhead earliest eligible virtual deadline first design. I guess I never really made that clear and now, ironically, with people quoting papers on that particular design now I probably should have. I appreciate the code does not in any way make it clear that that's the case because of the unique approach I used and doesn't really do or display any calculations in the code; it is all managed by handing out entitlements at priority intervals. Anyway, good, bad or indifferent I intend to keep it around for comparison to drive cfs further. -- -ck - 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/