Ingo Molnar wrote on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:48 AM
> * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ingo, what's your plan here?
>
> I really dont like the sysctl hack. Firstly, which precise kernel
> version was tested - do we know that it wasnt e.g. the smpnice
> regression interfering? Secondly, i dont like the sysctl concept itself:
> i really think we should try to find a way for _applications_ to be
> woken up according to their workload.
Ingo, you have tried to come up with an algorithm, Nick tried equally,
and I have tried. None of the "smart algorithms" works right now. The
workload requirements are on two opposite end of spectrum. If you do
one thing, it will hurt the other and vice versa. I don't see a solution
other than a sysctl. If you have implementation idea, I would be more
than happy to code it up and test. But I think we are really running dry
here.
- Ken
-
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/
[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]
