If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
OK Now I totally disabled cgroups and non-preemptible and voluntary-sleep preemption model, only preemptible option is left.Tickless is also disabled. These are the feature that desktop users won't care about
I DO care about tickless :P
best compromise about interactivity, smoothness and energy savings
otherwise I could also use the rt-kernel
or aren't there that much energy savings with tickless enabled ?
could you give me a more detailed rationale, why
- I should use an older branch of code
- what is different in principle to RIFS-ES
- I could have more success in testing than you yourself
1.I have to examine that what RIFS-ES really improved.
2.-ES has different method to decide whether we should increase the priority of a sleeper.And these idea is from the clasaic Unix scheduler and I have enhanced it.
4.I am the author of these 2 scheduler and my feeling might be a bit subjective.Also if the others have claimed that it is good , it will be more powerful than my words.
Please disable them. Yes desktop doesn't need these
Now I post a new one.
I know that disabling them fixes the errors, I just wanted to tell you so you can fix it in source.
But now I tried to compile it on a netbook with Intel Atom CPU:
block/built-in.o: In function `__blk_complete_request':
(.text+0x8345): undefined reference to `cpus_share_cache'
This time I don't know how to fix it.
//EDIT: Fixed by changing
shared = cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);
shared = true; // Hardcoded for HT, else: cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);
This code is for HyperThreading CPUs only and may fail on dual (or more) core CPUs. Also I couldn't test it yet as the netbook is slow and I have to do a lot more before I'm able to reboot.