"Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote: > > updated patch appended. thanks. Where are we up to with smpnice now? Are there still any known regressions/problems/bugs/etc? Has sufficient testing been done for us to know this? Thanks. - 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: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- References:
- smpnice loadbalancing with high priority tasks
- From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
- Re: smpnice loadbalancing with high priority tasks
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
- smpnice loadbalancing with high priority tasks
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Netlink and user-space buffer pointers
- Next by Date: [(take 2)patch 3/7] Notify page fault call chain for ia64
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] smpnice: don't consider sched groups which are lightly loaded for balancing
- Index(es):
 |