From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750732AbWGZODY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:03:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751629AbWGZODY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:03:24 -0400 Received: from [212.33.180.251] ([212.33.180.251]:24586 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628AbWGZODX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:03:23 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:04:35 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Peter Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200607241857.52389.a1426z@gawab.com> <200607261423.03527.a1426z@gawab.com> <200607261234.k6QCY7Eb022487@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200607261234.k6QCY7Eb022487@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607261704.35399.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:23:03 +0300, Al Boldi said: > > Running different scheds on a single RQ at the same time on the same > > resource would be rather odd. That's why independent RQs are necessary > > even on SMP. OTOH, running independent RQs on UP doesn't make much > > sense, unless there is a way to relate them. > > Exactly.. > > (But now I'm confused why you said SMP and UP were conceptually the same a > few notes back...) The important part here is 'unless there is a way to relate them', at which point UP and MP should be conceptually the same, while possibly differing in the implementation details. Thanks! -- Al