Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:47:46 +0000 (GMT) | From | arjan@fenrus ... | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre5 |
| |
In article <20011208214631.75573e9a.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> you wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:09:12 +0000 (GMT) > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > Actually that one is various Intel people not me 8) >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to see such things proven right in 2.5 first ? >> >> o 2.5 isnt going to be usable for that kind of thing in the near future >> o There is no code that is "new" for normal paths (in fact Marcelo >> wanted a change for the only "definitely harmless" one there was)
> The sched.c change is also useless (ie. only harmful).
The intention seems to be to avoid the situation where one "pair" is executing 2 processes while other "pair"s are fully idle. It makes a difference for the "system is < 50% busy" case, NOT for the "system is very busy" case....
- 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/
| |