Re: new latency report

From: Oliver Xymoron (oxymoron@waste.org)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 09:38:23 EST

Next message: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Previous message: gshekar@in.ibm.com: "Encrypting files"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: new latency report"
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: new latency report"
Reply: Davide Libenzi: "Re: new latency report"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Try adding the attached patch to your existing tree. It fixes a lot
> of stuff. sys_close() and sys_exit() still need attention.

Consider making a macro UGLYSCHEDULINGPOINT for these additions so that we
can find these easily and maybe easily switch between normal and
lowlatency for benchmarking. The 'UGLY' is to do dissuade people from
overuse.

-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Previous message: gshekar@in.ibm.com: "Encrypting files"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: new latency report"
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: new latency report"
Reply: Davide Libenzi: "Re: new latency report"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST