From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934095Ab0J1R2f (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:28:35 -0400 Received: from mx2.compro.net ([12.186.155.4]:58893 "EHLO mx2.compro.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934077Ab0J1R2a (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:28:30 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,253,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="5969919" Message-ID: <4CC9B2BD.1050504@compro.net> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:28:29 -0400 From: Mark Hounschell Reply-To: markh@compro.net Organization: Compro Computer Svcs. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100914 SUSE/3.0.8 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Dragoslav Zaric , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Tickles scheduler References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/28/2010 09:47 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The current plan is to switch off the tick when a process is running that > cannot be preempted ("realtime" (very bad choice of terms) tasks). > In what kind of time frame is this plan? And in the plan what will be the criteria for "cannot be preempted"? Thanks Mark