Message-ID: <3C38D45B.20105@fuse.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:48:59 -0500
From: Nathan <wfilardo@fuse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020105
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, 2.4.17-B0, 2.5.2-pre8-B0.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201052232170.13672-100000@majere.epithna.com> <1010297456.3226.11.camel@phantasy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Out of sheer curiosity (and this might be a stupid question), is there 
any effort to make the following lines of development all work together: 
RML's preempt-kernel and lock-break (and netdev, but that doesn't touch 
the other stuff), Rick's rmap VM, and the O(1) scheduler?  If so, is it 
being applied to 2.4 or 2.5? (Definately seems 2.5-ish, but given that 
all the patches are available for 2.4, I thought I'd ask.)

This system just got 2.4.18-pre1 with RML's preempt and Rick's rmap10c 
patches.  Seems stable though dbench 10 can take all responsiveness out 
of KDE (though XMMS never skips).  The O(1) scheduler did not apply, nor 
did lock-break, otherwise I would be running with all of the above.

Are any of these actually mutually exclusive? (that is, am I just 
wasting time and decreasing the s:n ratio on LKML?)

Thanks in advance.

--Nathan

Robert Love wrote:

>On Sat, 2002-01-05 at 22:34, listmail@majere.epithna.com wrote:
>
>>How close are you and Robert Love on getting this patch and his pre-emt
>>patches to co-operate...seems like that might bring huge wins.  I know, I
>>know I could diff, and fix the rejects myself, but this seems to deep in
>>the kernel for a relative newbie like myself(plus I am more a file system
>>guy)
>>
>
>Unfortunately it looks like it is going to take a bit more than fixing
>trivial rejects.  I started working on it today.  I suspect I am going
>to need a lot better understanding of Ingo's scheduler, so I am learning
>it.  I am traveling tomorrow but should be able to dive into it on
>Monday.
>
>Ingo and I both agree that the patches together are a Good Thing.
>
>I have a fully ported patch at this point but it hard locks on boot.  I
>believe the problem to be a few bits in sched.c, but there may be some
>underlying changes that break assumptions elsewhere.
>
>We are working on it.  Help is always appreciated, though ;)
>
>	Robert Love
>
>-
>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/
>


-
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/