Skip to contentSkip to conversation

O(1) scheduler for 2.4.19-rc1

PATCH In review Robert Love 2 participants 3 messages Jul 2, 2002

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 O(1) scheduler for 2.4.19-rc1

Available at

	ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/sched/ingo-O1/sched-O1-rml-2.4.19-rc1-1.patch

and mirrors. Aside from the resync to 2.4.19-rc1, the following changes are new since the last release (most all pulled from 2.5):

- reintroduce sync wake ups
- whitespace cleanup, trivial cleanups
- remove frozen lock and introduce new arch-specific switch_mm() logic
- new rq_lock and rq_unlock methods
- wake_up optimization
- nr_uninterruptible optimization for count_active_tasks
- merge the task CPU affinity system calls
- sched_yield bugfix
- minor fixes

Compiles on x86 UP and SMP.

Since Ingo recently posted 2.4-ac resyncs, I will refrain.

As I am the one doing these 2.4 patches, I will invariably be asked whether I intend for the O(1) scheduler to be merged into 2.4. The answer is a strong NO.

Enjoy,

Robert Love

#1 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Robert Love

Since Ingo recently posted 2.4-ac resyncs, I will refrain.

As I am the one doing these 2.4 patches, I will invariably be asked whether I intend for the O(1) scheduler to be merged into 2.4. The answer is a strong NO.

Of course, I think you know that you will also asked WHY?

Also if I can immagine your reasons, as similar discussions have been done for preemption patch and so on, and as I said at the times, I Agree.

2.5 is the place for this new and cool stuff.

Luigi

#2 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 15:10, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · Robert Love

As I am the one doing these 2.4 patches, I will invariably be asked whether I intend for the O(1) scheduler to be merged into 2.4. The answer is a strong NO.

Of course, I think you know that you will also asked WHY?

Because I do not think 2.4 should be a breeding ground for every new feature that wets someone's appetite. It should be stable and trusted before anything else. We also have to worry about architecture support. Let the scheduler be 2.5's thing.

Quoted 2 lines

Also if I can immagine your reasons, as similar discussions have been done for preemption patch and so on, and as I said at the times, I Agree.

I do not think preemption should go in 2.4, either. It too is a 2.5 thing.

Quoted 1 line

2.5 is the place for this new and cool stuff.

Agreed.

Robert Love