Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:27:41 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: switching schedulers (Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default) Message-ID: <4EEBC5DD.7080904@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <91A8A86F-4D83-4C6F-8E27-B74204C6ACF9@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <1350C7A0-BE58-4C34-804A-A6A3C1C61761@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4EEBBD5E.50603@FreeBSD.org> <91A8A86F-4D83-4C6F-8E27-B74204C6ACF9@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/16/2011 14:16, Michel Talon wrote: > Of course, you are perfectly right., and i had misunderstood Adrian's > post. Happens to the best of us. :) > But if the problem is only to change scheduler by rebooting, i think > it is no more expensive to compile a kernel with the other scheduler. > Or is it that people never compile kernels nowadays? That's part of it. For my money the other 2 big problems are first that we'd like to make it as easy on the 'make release' and installer processes as possible. I imagine (although I would not object to being proven wrong) that 1 kernel with knobs is easier to manage and less resource intensive than 2 kernels that differ only by this 1 feature. The other big problem is freebsd-update. While I assume that logic could be built into the system to handle this issue, if the guts can be built into the kernel itself why not do that instead? Of lesser, but not insignificant consideration is the possibility that at some point we'll have more than 2 scheduler options. Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EEBC5DD.7080904>