On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 04:48 +0200, Roel Kluin wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > I think you wanted a patch here? Hi Roel, I had forgotten to refresh before mailing the patches, but I sent an immediate followup (which unfortunately was not linked to the original posting. For your reference, here is the reposting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.rt.user/1626 Sorry for the confusion! Regards, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- [PATCH 0/9] RT: RT-Overload/Sched enhancements v4
- From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
- From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
- From: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/9] RT: RT-Overload/Sched enhancements v4
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] x86: unify a.out{,_32,_64}.h
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86: merge mmu{,_32,_64}.h
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
- Next by thread: [PATCH] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
- Index(es):
 |