Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1

* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:

> could you send me the .config you used for the PREEMPT_RT tests? Also, 
> you used -47-08, which was well prior the current round of performance 
> improvements, so you might want to re-run with something like -48-06 
> or better.

make that -48-10 or better.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
    • From: Kristian Benoit <[email protected]>

• References:
  • PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
    • From: Kristian Benoit <[email protected]>
  • Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: PROBLEM: OOPSes in PREEMPT SMP for AMD Opteron Dual-Core with Memhole Mapping (non tainted kernel)
• Next by Date: Re: sis190
• Previous by thread: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
• Next by thread: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]