Archives
Archives
| From: | Billy Holmes <billy@××××××.net> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-amd64@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-amd64] kernel.org vs. Gentoo-64 bit kernels (xruns) | ||
| Date: | Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:02:09 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4330157C.8050202@gonoph.net | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-amd64] kernel.org vs. Gentoo-64 bit kernels (xruns) by Mark Knecht |
||
| 1 | Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 | > Thanks. Yes, I've run ck-sources a few times in the past but not had |
| 3 | |
| 4 | when you run with ck-sources, others have found it's best to use |
| 5 | SCHED_ISO rather than SCHED_NORM (ck was patched with ISO support) - |
| 6 | which is like real time scheduling for users processes. From what I hear |
| 7 | it's easier to setup than the rt limits stuff (ie. it's automatic). |
| 8 | -- |
| 9 | gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-amd64] kernel.org vs. Gentoo-64 bit kernels (xruns) | Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-amd64] kernel.org vs. Gentoo-64 bit kernels (xruns) | Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-amd64] kernel.org vs. Gentoo-64 bit kernels (xruns) | "John C. Shimek" <jcshimek@×××××.com> |