Re: Current ULE state and plans (was Re: HMP scheduling on FreeBSD)

On 1/21/26 06:04, Olivier Certner wrote:
> . . .
> 
> People using 4BSD, especially as they don't seem to be many of them, should feel involved in testing/reporting about ULE.
> 
>. . .

Note: I've have never used the 4BSD scheduler and have no personal
interest in what happens to it. The below is just somewhat of an
alternate potential interpretation of what I've read.

A description of ULE behavior that was insufficient for various folks in
this discussion is not the same as them requesting ULE to become
sufficient (so long as 4BSD stays sufficient for their special type
context). I do not remember seeing any requests from these folks
requesting that ULE become sufficient for their special types of contexts.

I would guess that, for folks in this discussion for which 4BSD is good
enough but ULE has not been when ever they tried it, might object to
having to put significant time/effort/resources into testing a
replacement (an updated ULE) that might be only end up not being
significantly better then that "good enough" for their special context.
They also may not be able to in turn have those they deploy to involved
in the testing. Supporting the testing as you have described it might be
scary of itself.


-- 
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com