Re: new latency report

From: Davide Libenzi (davidel@maticad.it)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 10:28:44 EST

Next message: Willy Tarreau: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Previous message: Mike Davis: "Re: Why so must idle time ?"
In reply to: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: new latency report"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Consider making a macro UGLYSCHEDULINGPOINT for these additions so that we
> can find these easily and maybe easily switch between normal and
> lowlatency for benchmarking. The 'UGLY' is to do dissuade people from
> overuse.

.. and makes a find+sed to easily drop it from sources when a hackless
solution is found ;)

Davide

-- Feel free, feel Debian !

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Willy Tarreau: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Previous message: Mike Davis: "Re: Why so must idle time ?"
In reply to: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: new latency report"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST