On Wednesday, 6 of February 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 22:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, 6 of February 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Well, that whole queue. > > > > It doesn't compile for me. > > I did solve some compile issues since posting, Ingo should have the > compiling version in sched-devel soonish (don't know if he pushed it > already).
Can you point me to the cleaned up version, please? > > > Your test program just failed to obtain realtime scheduling > > > > Well, it shouldn't. The expected result is to obtain realtime scheduling > > or we will break existing setups. > > Thats a case of wrong expectations in my book. You enabled group > scheduling and hence behaviour changes. So, I'd have to unset FAIR_GROUP_SCHED to obtain the previous behavior? > There is just nothing much one can do about it, if you don't assign bandwidth > to a group, it won't be able to run anything. Better to refuse to run, than > to sit > idle, right? As a general rule, probably yes. > But I appreciate the situation, therefore I made the whole rt-group > scheduling a separate .config option (which defaults to n) Which is introduced by the new patches, isn't it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
