On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:41:04AM +0100, Chris Hedley wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Ryan Sommers wrote: >>> Are you using PREEMPT with SHED_ULE? Or is this just SHED_ULE without >>> preemption? >> >> I have both SCHED_ULE and PREEMPTION set in my config file, which I've >> included as an attachment "just in case" (please don't laugh at how >> scruffy it's become!) > > Aargh..you'd think people would have got the idea by now that > SCHED_ULE is broken, especially with PREEMPTION! I'm afraid that one also escaped my attention (I should really try to keep up with the list if I insist on using -CURRENT, I suppose!) I'd managed to get the impression that SCHED_ULE was the "way ahead", and I suppose I may as well keep it in there unless it becomes a major problem, but I can live without PREEMPTION so I'll lose that. I'll give it another recompile without PREEMPTION (and, if that doesn't fix it, with SCHED_4BSD instead of _ULE) and report my findings. But I'll do that tomorrow as it's now 4:30am and I'm feeling a bit bleary-eyed... Chris.Received on Wed Oct 20 2004 - 01:37:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:18 UTC