William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:42:51AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > sched_rr_get_interval(0, &ts);
> > printf("pid %d, prio %3d, interval of %d nsec\n", getpid(),
> > getpriority(PRIO_PROCESS, 0), ts.tv_nsec);
>
> Oh dear. What are you trying to figure out f
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:42:51AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> sched_rr_get_interval(0, &ts);
> printf("pid %d, prio %3d, interval of %d nsec\n", getpid(),
> getpriority(PRIO_PROCESS, 0), ts.tv_nsec);
Oh dear. What are you trying to figure out from the
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> That's odd. The ->load_weight changes should've improved that quite
> >> a bit. There may be something slightly off in how lag is computed,
> >> or maybe the O(n) lag issue Ying Tang spotted is biting you.
>
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> That's odd. The ->load_weight changes should've improved that quite
>> a bit. There may be something slightly off in how lag is computed,
>> or maybe the O(n) lag issue Ying Tang spotted is biting you.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:51:43AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Is i
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> Looks good, thanks. Ingo's been hard at work since then and has v8 out
> >> by now. SD has not changed so you wouldn't need to do the whole lot of
> >> tests on SD again unless you don't trust some of the results.
>
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02
Con Kolivas wrote:
>> Looks good, thanks. Ingo's been hard at work since then and has v8 out by
>> now. SD has not changed so you wouldn't need to do the whole lot of tests
>> on SD again unless you don't trust some of the results.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:11:39AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Well,
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2007 18:05, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > meanwhile I've redone my numbercrunching tests with the following
> > kernels: 2.6.21.1 (mainline)
> > 2.6.21-sd046
> > 2.6.21-cfs-v6
> > running on a dualcore x86_64.
> > [I will run the same test with 2.6.21.1-c
On Monday 30 April 2007 18:05, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> i list,
>
> meanwhile I've redone my numbercrunching tests with the following kernels:
> 2.6.21.1 (mainline)
> 2.6.21-sd046
> 2.6.21-cfs-v6
> running on a dualcore x86_64.
> [I will run the same test with 2.6.21.1-cfs-v7 over the ne
8 matches
Mail list logo
