On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:34AM -0700, Max Krasnyansky wrote:Although it seemed like something of a hack, we experimented with this previously and found that it didn't work reliably. I'm sure things have gotten better, but will need to revisit. Until a proven reliable method for doing this is firmly in place (as firmly as anything is, anyway), I don't think we should be removing the alternative. Nice idea. What sort of conflict are we talking about? I assume once you've begun setting up cpusets that include those cpus that you're intention is to change the original behavior. --
| Scott Preece | Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections |
| Luis R. Rodriguez | Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 |
| Dave Hansen | [PATCH 02/24] rearrange may_open() to be r/o friendly |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
