On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Dave Jones wrote:
> Maybe this would be better resolved at runtime ? With the above patch,
> you'd need three seperate kernel images to run optimally on a system in
> each of the cases. The 'vendor kernel' scenario here looks ugly to me.
it's not a problem - vendors enable it and that's all. But the majority of
SMP systems does not need a shared runqueue, so the associated overhead
(which, while small, is nonzero) can be avoided.
> Dumping all this into the config system seems to be the wrong direction
> IMHO. The myriad of runtime knobs in the scheduler already is bad
> enough, without introducing compile time ones as well.
what runtime knobs? I've avoided as many of them as possible.
Ingo
-
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 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST