In article <20011208214631.75573e9a.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> you wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:09:12 +0000 (GMT)
> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > Actually that one is various Intel people not me 8)
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it be better to see such things proven right in 2.5 first ?
>>
>> o 2.5 isnt going to be usable for that kind of thing in the near future
>> o There is no code that is "new" for normal paths (in fact Marcelo
>> wanted a change for the only "definitely harmless" one there was)
> The sched.c change is also useless (ie. only harmful).
The intention seems to be to avoid the situation where one "pair" is
executing 2 processes while other "pair"s are fully idle. It makes a
difference for the "system is < 50% busy" case, NOT for the "system is very
busy" case....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:14 EST