Rogan Dawes wrote:
My concern was that since Ingo said that this is a closed economy, with a fixed sum/total, if we lose a nanosecond here and there, eventually we'll lose them all.
I assume Ingo has set it up so that the system doesn't "lose" partial nanoseconds, but rather they'd just be accounted to the wrong task.
Chris - 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/
- References:
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Rogan Dawes <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Rogan Dawes <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Rogan Dawes <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Prev by Date: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- Next by Date: [OOPS 2.6.21-rc7-mm1] kernel BUG at fs/sysfs/inode.c:272 (sysfs_drop_dentry)
- Previous by thread: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Next by thread: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Index(es):
 |