Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: Cal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run twic

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > Cal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at > > > > > > Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run >

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Cal wrote: > > SCHED_ISO > /proc/sys/kernel/iso_cpu . . .: 70 > /proc/sys/kernel/iso_period . : 5 > XRUN Count . . . . . . . . . : 110 > > vs > > SCHED_FIFO > XRUN Count . . . . . . . . . : 114 > XRUN Count . . . . . . . . . : 187 > > vs > > SCHED

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Cal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at > > > Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run > twice. The discrepancies between consecutive runs (with same > par

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: Comments and testing welcome. There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run twice. The discrepancies between consecutive runs (with sam

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Cal wrote: Con Kolivas wrote: Comments and testing welcome. There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run twice. The discrepancies between consecutive ru