* Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:My current take on this: queue the current task right to the next position in the tree (this is what this patch achieves in essence) was one of the yield implementations we already tried in CFS but it didnt meet the expectations of some apps. So i can only repeat my argument: this is not something that can be "solved" in the way you imagine and your arguments just reiterate the path that CFS has already taken in the past. So please do not expect _us_ to go out and pester people. If people feel so inclined, they are of course welcome to test out various approaches. (they might as well try the original yield-granularity patch which also makes the amount of "delay" tunable, so the ideal amount of delay can be figured out. And of course they should also try the existing yield flag.) Ingo -
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4d... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
