Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 22:47 UTC
Linux Ingo Molnar released a new patchset titled the 'Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler'. He explained, "this project is a complete rewrite of the Linux task scheduler. My goal is to address various feature requests and to fix deficiencies in the vanilla scheduler that were suggested/found in the past few years, both for desktop scheduling and for server scheduling workloads."
Thread beginning with comment 233113
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sched_Fair
by RJop on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 15:31 UTC in reply to "Sched_Fair"
RJop
Member since:
2007-01-08

> I wonder if we might see a return to the times of
> distributions renicing X by default to make it more
> responsive if this sched becomes the default...

CFS has not been selected to next Linux scheduler yet. There's couple of others also which "compete" that title. For example I don't think that Con's SD needs X's renicing.

Edit: And Linus really hates X renising so I'm pretty sure that next scheduler won't do it.
"... renicing X is the *WRONG*THING*TO*DO*. Just don't do it. It's wrong. It was wrong with the old schedulers, it's wrong with the new scheduler, it's just WRONG." - Linus Torvalds

Edited 2007-04-23 15:36

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sched_Fair
by hornett on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 15:58 in reply to "RE: Sched_Fair"
hornett Member since:
2005-09-19

Indeed, that was exactly my point.

Hence my question, also *if* this scheduler becomes default, would Linus et al, change their position on renicing X if it is beneficial to interactivity?

Is there some underlying reason why X should not be treated as a special case if it useful to ensure it can run when it needs to?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Sched_Fair
by RJop on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 18:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Sched_Fair"
RJop Member since:
2007-01-08

> Is there some underlying reason why X should not be
> treated as a special case if it useful to ensure it
> can run when it needs to?

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/23/186

Reply Parent Score: 1