| To: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RT and XFS |
| From: | Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:16:55 -0700 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20050715102311.GA5302@elte.hu> |
| References: | <1121209293.26644.8.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20050713002556.GA980@frodo> <20050713064739.GD12661@elte.hu> <1121273158.13259.9.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20050714002246.GA937@frodo> <20050714135023.E241419@melbourne.sgi.com> <1121314226.14816.18.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20050715102311.GA5302@elte.hu> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 12:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > PI is always good, cause it allows the tracking of what is high > > priority , and what is not . > > that's just plain wrong. PI might be good if one cares about priorities > and worst-case latencies, but most of the time the kernel is plain good > enough and we dont care. PI can also be pretty expensive. So in no way, > shape or form can PI be "always good". I don't agree with that. But of course I'm always speaking from a real time perspective . PI is expensive , but it won't always be. However, no one is forcing PI on anyone, even if I think it's good .. Daniel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | postgresql perfomance on xfs, Ed |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS corruption during power-blackout, Al Boldi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RT and XFS, Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RT and XFS, Esben Nielsen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |