On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 04:23 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, Hi, > The new scheduler does _a_lot_ of heavy 64 bit calculations without any > attempt to scale that down a little... See prio_to_weight[], prio_to_wmult[] and sysctl_sched_stat_granularity. Perhaps more can be done, but "without any attempt..." isn't accurate. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] try parent numa_node at first before using default
- Next by Date: Re: CPUFreq compilation failure with current GIT.
- Previous by thread: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Next by thread: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Index(es):
![]() |