On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 of February 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 22:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 6 of February 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > Well, that whole queue. > > > > > > It doesn't compile for me. > > > > I did solve some compile issues since posting, Ingo should have the > > compiling version in sched-devel soonish (don't know if he pushed it > > already). > > Can you point me to the cleaned up version, please?
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/sched-rt-group/ on top of sched-devel. > > > > Your test program just failed to obtain realtime scheduling > > > > > > Well, it shouldn't. The expected result is to obtain realtime scheduling > > > or we will break existing setups. > > > > Thats a case of wrong expectations in my book. You enabled group > > scheduling and hence behaviour changes. > > So, I'd have to unset FAIR_GROUP_SCHED to obtain the previous behavior? With the mainline stuff, with the new stuff just ensure CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED=n. > > There is just nothing much one can do about it, if you don't assign > > bandwidth > > to a group, it won't be able to run anything. Better to refuse to run, than > > to sit > > idle, right? > > As a general rule, probably yes. > > > But I appreciate the situation, therefore I made the whole rt-group > > scheduling a separate .config option (which defaults to n) > > Which is introduced by the new patches, isn't it? Yes. -- 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/
