Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:39:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:38:41 -0500 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:62725 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:38:28 -0500 Message-Id: <200112292338.AAA29985@webserver.ithnet.com> Cc: Dieter =?iso-8859-1?q?N=FCtzel?= , Robert Love , Linux Kernel List Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 00:38:12 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balanced Multi Queue Scheduler ... To: Davide Libenzi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen) In-Reply-To: From: Stephan von Krawczynski Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Dieter [iso-8859-15] N?tzel wrote: > > The new patch need ver >= 2.5.2-pre3 because Linus merged the Time Slice > Split Scheduler and making it to apply to 2.4.x could be a pain in the b*tt. > Yes, as i expected numbers on big SMP are very good but still i don't > think that this can help you with your problem. Just a short note on that: Before the scheduler stuff really got rolling there was a pretty distinct discussion why L didn't quite get involved in the thread. I may remind you that he thought it to be not a _that_ interesting stuff and I well remember he said something about the smallness and the low possibility that it gets broken by (well-thought-out) patches. This leads me to believe he has no major issues with enhancements to 2.4 scheduler. Well, me neither :-) In fact we should keep in mind that 2.5 is a _development_ kernel and a next stable branch is out-of-sight at this time. So it would be quite reasonable to do a "backport" to 2.4 of the scheduler, because SMP systems do get more in size and number today and the near future. And we should not expect the not-LKML world to use _development_ kernels on their cool-nu-SMP-box (tm), because this can only be bad for ongoing comparisons with other OSs. Well, you know what I mean. In fact I can see two major steps to take for marcelo's maintenance (besides the bugfixes of course): 1) the SMP-scheduling (its all yours, Davide :-) 2) the HIGHMEM problems (a warm welcome to Andrea :-) We cannot deny the fact that people expect the scalability of the system, and just to give you a small hint, I personally already stopped buying UP machines. There is no real big difference in prices between UP and 2-SMP these days, and RAM is unbelievably cheap in this decade - and it makes your seti-statistics fly ;-) So these issues will be very much in the mainstream of all users. No way to deny this. I have no fear: this is a reachable goal, let's just take it. Regards, Stephan PS: Yes, Alan, I read your mail about the 32GB box and DMA and stuff, but nevertheless we should keep up with the market-ongoings (damn cheap 1GB modules). - 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/