![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Dave Jones wrote: > Maybe this would be better resolved at runtime ? With the above patch, > you'd need three seperate kernel images to run optimally on a system in > each of the cases. The 'vendor kernel' scenario here looks ugly to me. it's not a problem - vendors enable it and that's all. But the majority of SMP systems does not need a shared runqueue, so the associated overhead (which, while small, is nonzero) can be avoided. > Dumping all this into the config system seems to be the wrong direction > IMHO. The myriad of runtime knobs in the scheduler already is bad > enough, without introducing compile time ones as well. what runtime knobs? I've avoided as many of them as possible. Ingo - 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 12:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||