Auto-Adaptive scheduler - Final chapter ( the numbers ) ...

[Larry McVoy]

: _If_ we see that low RQ applications don't switch much, then we can
: assert that low RQ applications aren't adversely affected by the patch.

Huh?  What about I/O servers?  FTP, Web, etc?  Are they not low RQ and 
frequently switching applications?  Yes, they are.

: The patch is to improve the performance of applications that _aren't_
: written in the best way for performance.  Because changing the
: applications is too difficult -- changing the kernel is not.

With all due respect, your statement is unsupportable.  Consider that
there are many bad applications with _different_ forms of badness, some
of which are mutually exclusive.  If you optimize for any of them, we can
always find another one that just got hurt.  Now what?

The only answer I see is to leave the kernel optimized for good
applications and wait for the people who have bad ones to fix them.
They don't have to fix them, they can suffer the consequences of not
fixing them, but ``fixing'' the kernel for what is a user level mistake
is never a good idea.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo en vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/