Hi Ingo,
When compiling, I get:
In file included from kernel/sched.c:794:
kernel/sched_fair.c: In function 'task_new_fair':
kernel/sched_fair.c:857: error: 'sysctl_sched_child_runs_first'
undeclared (first use in this function)
kernel/sched_fair.c:857: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reporte
On 9/11/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> When compiling, I get:
Yeah, this was my fault :(
I've had a chance to test this now, and everything feels great. I did
some benchmarks for 2.6.23-rc1, 2.6.23-rc6-cfs, and
2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel:
lat_ct
On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > thanks for the numbers! Could you please also post the .config you used?
> >
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> >
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > &g
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bound to single core:
...
> hackbench 50
> # rc1 rc6 cfs-devel
> 1 7.528 7.950 7.538
> 2 7.649 8.026 7.548
> 3 7.613 8.160 7.580
> 4 7.550 8.054 7.558
> 5 7.563 8.373 7.559
> 6 7.617 8.152 7.550
> 7
On 9/15/07, ポール・ロラン Paul Rolland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Each time I add the support for this piece of hardware, I have a crash during
> the boot process.
> Serial console gives the attached boot message...
>
...
> WARNING: at lib/kref.c:33 kref_get()
> Call Trace:
> [] kref_get+0x
On 9/15/07, Eric Valette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Valette wrote:
>
> > I can probably take a picture of the backtrace if you want.
>
> Just saw that just above my message in the LKML web interface, someone
> posted a backtrace. Mine is different but at least, we are at least two
> to have
On 9/15/07, ポール・ロラン Paul Rolland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:30:14 +0200
> Eric Valette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Rob Hussey wrote:
> > > On 9/15/07, Eric Valette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png
>
> heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in
>
On 9/18/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:30:05AM -0400, Rob Hussey wrote:
> > I should have pointed out before that I don't really have a dual-core
> > system, just a P4 with Hyper-Threading (I loosely use
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > i've meanwhile tested hackbench 90 and the performance difference
> > between -ck and -cfs-devel seems to be mostly down to the more precise
> > (but slower) sched_clock() introduced in v2.6.23 and
On 9/18/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A cursory glance suggests that performance wrt lat_ctx and hackbench
> > has increased (lower numbers), but degraded quite a lot for pipe-test.
> > The num
On 9/18/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The obligatory graphs:
> > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_lat_ctx_benchmark.png
> > http://
14 matches
Mail list logo
