Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1187566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-19 13:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-07-20 02:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v3] sched: modify how to compute a slice and check a preemptability Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-19 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] sched: modify how to compute a slice and check a preemptability Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-07-20 02:10 +0200
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-19 13:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] sched: modify how to compute a slice and check a preemptability |
| Message-ID | <pNUNr-14g-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:11:00PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote: > doesn't it make sense? No, people have already given you all kinds of reasons why this isn't a good change. It is also a very invasive change and you have no performance numbers one way or another. I'm going to fully ignore this thread from now on. -- 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/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 02:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pO6OC-1sk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1187566 |
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 01:15:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:11:00PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote: > > doesn't it make sense? > > No, people have already given you all kinds of reasons why this isn't a i feel sorry. but all kinds?. i got only a reason, that is, latency problem. so i already mentioned both of two cases, because of the reason people told me. furthermore, nobody gave me a reason why the code should use local cfs's nr_running to get period at all. > good change. It is also a very invasive change and you have no > performance numbers one way or another. > > I'm going to fully ignore this thread from now on. sorry for bothering you. > -- > 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/ -- 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/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web