On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 10:20 +0100, Uwaysi Bin Kareem wrote:
> Ok, anyway realtime processes did not work quite as expected.
> ("overloaded" machine, even though cpu-time is only 10%). So I guess I
> have to enable cgroups and live with the overhead then.
>
> If I set cpu-limits there, does th
Ok, anyway realtime processes did not work quite as expected.
("overloaded" machine, even though cpu-time is only 10%). So I guess I
have to enable cgroups and live with the overhead then.
If I set cpu-limits there, does that involve an absolute value, or is it
normalized, so that even if I
--- Forwarded message ---
From: "Uwaysi Bin Kareem"
To: "Mike Galbraith"
Cc:
Subject: Re: Scheduler queues for less os-jitter?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 02:19:39 +0100
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:46:34 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 20:13 +0200, Uwa
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 20:13 +0200, Uwaysi Bin Kareem wrote:
> I was just wondering, have you considered this?
>
> If daemons are contributing to os-jitter, wouldn`t having them all on
> their own queue reduce jitter? So people could have the stuff like in
> Ubuntu they want, without affecting
I was just wondering, have you considered this?
If daemons are contributing to os-jitter, wouldn`t having them all on
their own queue reduce jitter? So people could have the stuff like in
Ubuntu they want, without affecting jitter, or needing stuff like Tiny
Core, for tiny jitter?
So you
5 matches
Mail list logo