[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.68-A9

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.145 / U:11.860 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site