From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Oct 9 22:12:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B06637B401; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2E243E75; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:12:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700B22A88D; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:12:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Jeff Roberson , Luigi Rizzo , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scheduler patch, ready for commit. In-Reply-To: <200210100446.g9A4k6kx026651@intruder.bmah.org> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:12:41 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20021010051241.700B22A88D@canning.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Bruce A. Mah" wrote: > If memory serves me right, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > > > > > well, you said you posted it just to get feedback, and now in 24 hours > > > you declare it "ready for commit". A bit rushing, aren't you! > > > > Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was looking for an indication of whether or not > > this was something people were interested in having in for 5.0. I'm not > > going to rush the commit but by declaring it to be of a sufficient quality > > for commiting I was hoping to scare more poeple into reviewing it. ;-) > > Let me just briefly don my RE team member hat and say that for right > now, I'm much more interested in seeing commits to make CURRENT more > stable, rather than seeing people add lots of new functionality. > Remember that we're targeting a release in less than two months. It's > not going to be possible to make CURRENT perfect by then, but we need to > avoid making this process more complicated by adding loads of new > features, especially in the area of something as fundamental as the > scheduler. To answer your concerns.. What Jeff is doing is trying to neatly encapsulate the existing scheduler into one place with a well defined interface and hooks to the rest of the kernel. As long as this is done right, it is a NOP change.. but with an important difference. It then allows optional drop-in replacements to be worked on independently. I personally think it is worth it since the potential gains are so great - as long as as this step is done carefully and doesn't change the existing policy and strategies. And that just happens to be what Jeff is trying to do. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message