On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:37:38 +1000 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> test.kernel.org found some idle time regressions in the latest update to the
> staircase deadline scheduler and Andy Whitcroft helped me track down the
> offending problem which was present in all previous RSDL schedulers
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:18 +0200, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > (dang, i need to find that fifty "make it red" thingie for vi again)
^(spiffy;)
>
> put "let c_space_errors=1" in .vimrc
Thanks.
I received this link
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> (dang, i need to find that fifty "make it red" thingie for vi again)
put "let c_space_errors=1" in .vimrc
HTH,
Johannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More maj
find a whitespace fix below.
Ingo
Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ static int recalc_task_prio(struct task_
/*
* Migration timestam
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -*/
> > +*/
> > if (now < p->timestamp || batch_task(p))
> > sleep_time = 0;
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> (dang, i need to find that fifty "make it red" thingie for vi again)
or just start using quilt, which warns about this :)
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> find a whitespace fix below.
>
> Ingo
>
> Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
> ===
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ static int r
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> looks interesting - could you send the patch?
Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty good in testing. Comments on
fugliness etc much appreciated.
Below the numbers is a snapshot of my experimental tree. It's a mixture
of my old throttling/ant
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 07:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:37 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 March 2007 15:50, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:44 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > + * This contains a bitmap for each dynamic priority level wi
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Try two instances of chew.c at _differing_ nice levels on one cpu on
> > > mainline, and then SD. This is why you can't renice X on mainline.
> >
> > How about something more challenging i
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 07:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:37 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 March 2007 15:50, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:44 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > + * This contains a bitmap for each dynamic priority level wi
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Try two instances of chew.c at _differing_ nice levels on one cpu on
> > mainline, and then SD. This is why you can't renice X on mainline.
>
> How about something more challenging instead :)
>
> The numbers below are from my scheduler tree with
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:37 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 29 March 2007 15:50, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:44 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > + * This contains a bitmap for each dynamic priority level with empty slots
> > + * for the valid priorities each different ni
On Thursday 29 March 2007 15:50, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:44 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> + * This contains a bitmap for each dynamic priority level with empty slots
> + * for the valid priorities each different nice level can have. It allows
> + * us to stagger the slots whe
On Thursday 29 March 2007 18:18, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Rereading to make sure I wasn't unclear anywhere...
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:50 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I don't see what a < 95% load really means.
>
> Egad. Here I'm pondering the numbers and light load as I'm typing, and
> my
Am Sonntag 01 April 2007 schrieb michael chang:
> On 4/1/07, Prakash Punnoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch 28 März 2007 schrieb Prakash Punnoor:
> > >
> > > Hi, I am using 2.6.21-rc5 with rsdl 0.37 and think I still see a
> > > regression with my Athlon X2. Namely using this ac3 encod
Am Mittwoch 28 März 2007 schrieb Prakash Punnoor:
> Am Mittwoch 28 März 2007 schrieb Con Kolivas:
> > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix wedge
> > now.
> >
> > ---
> > set_load_weight() should be performed after p->quota is set. This fixes a
> > large SMP performanc
On 3/29/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rereading to make sure I wasn't unclear anywhere...
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:50 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> I don't see what a < 95% load really means.
Egad. Here I'm pondering the numbers and light load as I'm typing, and
my fingers (
Rereading to make sure I wasn't unclear anywhere...
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:50 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> I don't see what a < 95% load really means.
Egad. Here I'm pondering the numbers and light load as I'm typing, and
my fingers (seemingly independent when mind wanders off) typed < 9
Oh my, I'm on a roll here... somebody stop me ;-)
Some emphasis:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 08:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:50 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Opinion polls are nice, but I'm more interested in gathering numbers
> > which either validate or invalidate
On Thursday 29 March 2007 02:37, Con Kolivas wrote:
> I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix wedge
> now.
My neck condition got a lot worse today. I'm forced offline for a week and
will be uncontactable.
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:50 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Opinion polls are nice, but I'm more interested in gathering numbers
> which either validate or invalidate the claims of the design documents.
Suggestion: try the testcase that Satoru Takeuch posted. The numbers I
got with latest SD were
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:44 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 29 March 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm, how about the questions Mike raised (there were a couple of cases of
> > friction between 'the design as documented and announced' and 'the code
> > as implemented')? As far as i saw
On Thursday 29 March 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hm, how about the questions Mike raised (there were a couple of cases of
> friction between 'the design as documented and announced' and 'the code
> as implemented')? As far as i saw they were still largely unanswered -
> but let me know if they
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
> wedge now.
hm, how about the questions Mike raised (there were a couple of cases of
friction between 'the design as documented and announced' and 'the code
as implemented')? As far
Am Mittwoch 28 März 2007 schrieb Con Kolivas:
> I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix wedge
> now.
>
> ---
> set_load_weight() should be performed after p->quota is set. This fixes a
> large SMP performance regression.
Hi, I am using 2.6.21-rc5 with rsdl 0.37 and thin
test.kernel.org found some idle time regressions in the latest update to the
staircase deadline scheduler and Andy Whitcroft helped me track down the
offending problem which was present in all previous RSDL schedulers but
previously wouldn't be manifest without changes in nice. So here is a bugfix
26 matches
Mail list logo
