| |||||||||||||
RDSL and ignoring feedbackRDSL and ignoring feedbackPosted Jul 26, 2007 22:44 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: RDSL and ignoring feedback by jospoortvliet Parent article: Still waiting for swap prefetch
SwPr didn't get in because some very rich employers don't want to destabilize their NUMA monsters? Er, doesn't this sound really unlikely?
The article mentions that Linus and some others feel that SwPr is just papering over a more fundamental problem. So, why not spend time trying to fix the fundamental problem before hacking around it?
That's a rhetorical question... there could be a number of reasons: the root cause is too complex to be understood, or the proper fix is worse than SwPr, etc. I just think that Linus & crew would like to see someone attempt to fix the real problem before resorting to a SwPr hack. If a proper fix is attempted and proves unweildy, then I bet SwPr will jump a lot higher on a number of kernel devs' priority queues.
> ...entirely silly. Complaining about the fairness of a fair scheduler?
They weren't complaining about the fairness, they were complaining about the quality. Is a 100% fair scheduler actually the best scheduler? Probably not.
(Log in to post comments)
RDSL and ignoring feedback Posted Jul 28, 2007 12:35 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] No, but a 100% fair scheduler is the only way to ensure you won't havestalls and other problems brought by unfairness. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
RDSL and ignoring feedback Posted Jul 28, 2007 20:41 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Sorry, I don't quite understand... are you saying that a 100% fair scheduler actually *is* the best scheduler? If so, then would you have any evidence/research to back this up? I'm genuinely interested.
My uneducated view: in schedulers, as with government and parenting, 100% fairness is unattainable and probably paradoxical. The best policy may or may not be the most fair policy. They're simply disconnected.
|
|||||||||||||