Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757346AbZCFXBi (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:01:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754424AbZCFXBT (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:01:19 -0500 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:52252 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753435AbZCFXBS (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:01:18 -0500 Message-ID: <49B1AB3A.2050303@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:01:14 -0800 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sitsofe Wheeler CC: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "lkml, " Subject: Re: Dynamically determine if kernel includes CFS Scheduler References: <49B18B2E.606@us.ibm.com> <20090306225312.GA25593@silver.sucs.org> In-Reply-To: <20090306225312.GA25593@silver.sucs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1704 Lines: 38 Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:44:30PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: >> I've received an internal request for a means to determine at run-time >> if the CFS scheduler is included in the running kernel. Looking through >> the git commit log and the /proc/sys/kernel filesystem, I think I see >> two approaches: > > Sounds dangerous (you are dependent on scheduler beahviour) but if it > exists you could check /proc/config.gz (or the config file in the /boot > directory)... > So I am of course in agreement with both you and Peter. In this case, the development team of an existing product is trying to move away from heavy use of sched_yield(), and the CFS scheduler provides some motivation for that as the behavior of sched_yield() changed (again). As we know, this behavior should not be depended upon, but lots of applications do it unfortunately. So, in this case the development team would like to move to becoming less dependent on it, but unfortunately do not feel it is feasible to make the change unconditionally as it has the potential to destabilize the existing installations, etc. They would like to be able to say, use this new approach using fewer sched_yield() calls on kernels with CFS. I understand it isn't ideal, and I have of course provided that feedback, but I would like to provide them with all the information I can. Thanks, -- Darren Hart IBM Linux Technology Center Real-Time Linux Team -- 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/