From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 12 20:58:57 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 370C616A4CF
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:58:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01C843D48
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:58:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by fledge.watson.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0CKsgpx053367;
	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:54:42 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)j0CKsfqw053364;
	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:54:41 GMT
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:54:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Richard Coleman <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com>
In-Reply-To: <41E553EB.10809@criticalmagic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050112205320.51702B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
Subject: Re: MFC wishlist
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:58:57 -0000


On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Richard Coleman wrote:

> > No, because the project has no ability to "assign
> > priority/resources". If someone who has is intrested and capable time
> > to work on it, does so in time, then it may be done, if not, it
> > won't.
> 
> Should we take this to mean that none of the developers are interested
> in ULE any more?  That's the general feeling I get these days.  Just
> curious. 

Well, Jeff had a spurt of activity just before Christmas in which he
corrected some issues relating to scheduling, and also committed a visual
scheduling analysis tool that is both (a) quite neat, and (b) intended to
help him measure and optimize scheduling.  However, he's not been seen
since then, so perhaps he went on vacation for a few weeks.  From
conversations with him, it sounded like he would be investing a
substantial mount of time on the SMP VFS locking work, and also on
SCHED_ULE.

Robert N M Watson