From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 7 22:07:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EFA16A4CE; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:07:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB8C43D2F; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:07:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.0.200] ([192.168.0.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i87M7MI1005723; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:07:22 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <413E3058.50708@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:04:08 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040831 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Kohn References: <413E20FC.80801@samsco.org> <1094593528.845.11.camel@klamath.ankon.de.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <1094593528.845.11.camel@klamath.ankon.de.eu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: re@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Scheduler change X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:07:03 -0000 Andreas Kohn wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 22:58, Scott Long wrote: > >>All, >> >>In the interest of getting RELENG_5 stable and ready for 5.3, we are >>going to switch the scheduler in 6-CURRENT from SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to only switch in RELENG_5, and leave it as > default in HEAD? > Or would it complicate testing and current work too much? > > Regards, > Andreas > > (This questions basically comes from an interest in good QA and RE > practices) > We are trying to keep HEAD as a good test-bed for future RELENG_5 fixes. It's hard to get broad testing of scheduler related things if HEAD and RELENG_5 are using different schedulers. We also want to see HEAD be stable enough to develop and test non-scheduler related things too. Scott