I'm not pretending to merge it now (and that why I sent a link to repository
instead of patches), but,
probably, there are guys here, who can try it and save a bit of hardware.
Regards,
Roman
04.09.2014, 20:49, "Peter Zijlstra" :
> No, we're not going to merge a second rt balancer. If you want
No, we're not going to merge a second rt balancer. If you want to change
it change the one that is there. But it needs to remain a valid
_Real_Time_ balancer at all times.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.o
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:20:06PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We had an earlier discussion about using real-time policies on modern CPUs
> for cpu-bound tasks with "near real-time" execution time expectations (like
> front-end servers):
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/24/602 .
>
>
Hello!
We had an earlier discussion about using real-time policies on modern CPUs
for cpu-bound tasks with "near real-time" execution time expectations (like
front-end servers):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/24/602 .
I sad, that I had a prototype of real-time load balancer (called smart), that
p
4 matches
Mail list logo