|| ||"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen-AT-nortel.com> |
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER |
|| ||Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:15:26 -0600|
|| ||Christoph Lameter <cl-AT-linux-foundation.org>, mingo-AT-elte.hu,
peterz-AT-infradead.org, raziebe-AT-gmail.com, maximlevitsky-AT-gmail.com,
efault-AT-gmx.de, riel-AT-redhat.com, wiseman-AT-macs.biu.ac.il,
|| ||Article, Thread
On 08/26/2009 02:50 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> What problem?
> All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU". That's not a problem
> statement - it's an implementation.
> What is the problem statement?
I can only speak for myself...
In our case the problem statement was that we had an inherently
single-threaded emulator app that we wanted to push as hard as
We gave it as close to a whole cpu as we could using cpu and irq
affinity and we used message queues in shared memory to allow another
cpu to handle I/O. In our case we still had kernel threads running on
the app cpu, but if we'd had a straightforward way to avoid them we
would have used it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)