On 2/26/08, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/2/25, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the
> CPU-scheduler.
> > > The CPU-s
On 2008/2/25, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the
> CPU-scheduler.
> > The CPU-scheduler will know the number of context switches of each tas
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the
> CPU-scheduler.
> The CPU-scheduler will know the number of context switches of each task
> before of to take a blind decision into infinitum!.
We alr
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:12 +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> On 2008/2/24, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One reason: for the objective of gain interactivity, it's an issue that
> > > CFS fair scheduler lacks it.
> >
> > A bug report would be a much better first step toward resolu
Good morning :)
On 2008/2/24, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, one last reply on the (overly optimistic?) assumption that you are not a
> troll.
> > +++ linux-2.6_git-20080224/include/linux/sched.h2008-02-24
> > 04:50:18.0 +0100
> > @@ -1007,6 +1007,12 @@
> >
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 05:08 +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> One reason: for the objective of gain interactivity, it's an issue that
> CFS fair scheduler lacks it.
A bug report would be a much better first step toward resolution of any
interactivity issues you're seeing than posts which do nothing
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:08:46 +0100
"J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, one last reply on the (overly optimistic?) assumption that you are not a
troll.
> +++ linux-2.6_git-20080224/include/linux/sched.h2008-02-24
> 04:50:18.0 +0100
> @@ -1007,6 +1007,12 @@
> stru
On 2008/2/24, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:08:38 +0100
> "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We will need 64 bit counters of the slow context switches,
> > one counter for each new created task (e.g. u64 ctxt_switch_counts;)
>
>
> Please send a p
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:08:38 +0100
"J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We will need 64 bit counters of the slow context switches,
> one counter for each new created task (e.g. u64 ctxt_switch_counts;)
Please send a patch ...
> I will explain your later why of it.
... and explain exact
9 matches
Mail list logo
