| To: | Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RT and XFS |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:23:11 +0200 |
| 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: | <1121314226.14816.18.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> |
| 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> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
* 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".
Ingo
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | deadlocks on ENOSPC, ASANO Masahiro |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: deadlocks on ENOSPC, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RT and XFS, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RT and XFS, Daniel Walker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |