On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:23:03 +0300, Al Boldi said: > Running different scheds on a single RQ at the same time on the same resource > would be rather odd. That's why independent RQs are necessary even on SMP. > OTOH, running independent RQs on UP doesn't make much sense, unless there is > a way to relate them. Exactly.. (But now I'm confused why you said SMP and UP were conceptually the same a few notes back...)
Attachment:
pgpBvM9aENwYf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- References:
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH V2] reference rt-mutex-design in rtmutex.c
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] slab: always follow arch requested alignments
- Previous by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Next by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Index(es):