Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:27:39 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes |
| |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:
>Anyway, I'm tired so this explanation probably sucks, but the bottom >line is that if you optimize your scheduler for lat_ctx on an SMP, >you probably made it slower for real workloads. If Linux has a way to
That was my whole point. I agree completly. I am ok to do something that may optimize lat_ctx on SMP if it doesn't harm normal workloads though ;).
>If this has done nothing but confuse you, send mail, I'll try again.
No, I agree and it matches with my RL experience. Thanks for the clarification.
Andrea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |