> No, I've no figures to provide here. The background of this dist_eqs
> option is actually to allow us testing across all event queues
> without to change the testcases resp consumers to use certain
> event queue number. Thus, I should comment it as EXPERIMENTAL?
Seems like it's just development/testing code that shouldn't escape
into the wild?
> > I think I would rather hold off on multiple EQs for this merge window
> > and plan on having something really solid and thought-out for 2.6.24.
> Fair enough. However why don't let us gather experience with this
> feature now? Should we remove dist_eqs option for more consistency?
As I said I definitely think the dist_eqs switch doesn't sound like
something we want to expose to people.
With that said I still am not sure about putting the multiple EQs
feature in this release. All the infrastructure is there to make
experimenting with it fairly painless (just the low-level driver needs
to change), and I still haven't seen much code using the feature or
even any anecdotal information about the performance impact.
-
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]
