From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 12:43:50 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EC916A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:43:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.rdsnet.ro (gimli.rdsnet.ro [193.231.236.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2990D43D31 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:43:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: (qmail 14696 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2005 12:39:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.rdsnet.ro) (62.231.74.130) by smtp1-133.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 8 Feb 2005 12:39:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 24133 invoked by uid 89); 8 Feb 2005 12:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.tecnik93.com) (81.196.204.98) by 0 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2005 12:46:55 -0000 Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C57D116B4; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:43:44 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:43:43 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Michael Nottebrock Message-ID: <20050208144343.5bd6dd76@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Mipam cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:43:50 -0000 On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:33:04 +0100 Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 13:07, Mipam wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. > > Beneath is one of them: > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html > > > > Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? > > You can now compile a kernel with options SCHED_ULE again. How well it works > is for yourself to determine :-) (I've been using it on my UP machine here > since yesterday only). Could you tell us again after a week ? There used to be a panic when using rtprio to raise the priority of a running process, do you know if it's fix ? -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"