![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: >Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote: > >> >> >>Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> >>>So i believe the generic relaxing of sched_clock() synchronization is >>>the right thing to do. I like your patch. It adds minimal overhead and >>>solves a hard problem - nice work! Andrew, please apply it. >>> >>> >>> >>Its a great looking patch if you must have high res sched_clock. So >>I guess I agree with it. >> > >miaow ;) > I'm just thinking that computers with unsynched clocks have less need for good interactivity, but thats probably too narrow and x86 a view anyway. > >>Can we have a scheduler day when Andrew is ready to take patches for >>it? I have a few small changes that I'd like to get merged soon too >>(not sched domains - that should probably go to the mm tree for a while) >> >>Relevant patches are >>sched-ctx-count-preempt.patch >>sched-fork-cleanup.patch >>sched-migrate-comment.patch >>sched-style.patch >>sched-migrate-affinity-race.patch >> >> > >Post 'em. > OK, I'll trim the cc list though... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||