On Wed, 02 May 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Anyway, good, bad or indifferent I intend to keep it around for comparison to
> drive cfs further.
Well, just to let you know some of us really like the design, and prefer to
use SD and have an extremely strict scheduling priority set through nice
levels,
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 04:50, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:10:39 +1100
>
> Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler policy
>
> I'll be dropping this from -mm now. I don't think we're learning anything
> more by having it in there and I generally
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:10:39 +1100
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler policy
I'll be dropping this from -mm now. I don't think we're learning anything
more by having it in there and I generally want to get things more back
into sync.
For the record, I don'
Con Kolivas wrote:
> All tasks are initially given a quota based on RR_INTERVAL. This is equal
> to RR_INTERVAL between nice values of -6 and 0, half that size above nice
> 0, and progressively larger for nice values from -1 to -20.
from -7 to -20.
I suppose this could be policy decision?
> This
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 20:47 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nobody puts the description of the fields _below_ those fields.
There are also some instances of if (foo = bar()). Maybe someone who
isn't buried in work (as you always are) can find time to review.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from t
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:10:39 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, PRIO_RANGE + 1);
> + /*
> + * This bitmap shows what priorities this task has received quota
> + * from for this major priority rotation on its current runqueue.
> + */
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
