Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:58:58 -0500 From: Jeff Blank <jb000002@mr-happy.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler in Various Docs Message-ID: <20080120185858.GA17909@mr-happy.com> In-Reply-To: <479388C0.50507@highperformance.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason C. Wells wrote:
X-Face: #0jV*~a}VtKS-&E/!EJpH('H1Va}24dxF0oT&+.R3Gu8C;xhSC+<|+H84&YLbMvphuRT4cp3.|8EN_(2Eix/6{.Up~u`a^}0Ln&b+9Fw|BPig@-{y$gg\pL_46d&ZwA]5%_AU?}DezfE&1!>H?3E$!Yve7.O<+..Jnb4:'6Ey_]FtFzU9=*l$1p/@gA,Ze>^5<]+r(XJ+m7`/vMDc$'wy|$nE`e
> The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD are inconsistent with
> information found in the email archives. LINT says ULE is experimental.
> The handbook doesn't mention ULE at all. The archives say ULE is the
> new recommended scheduler.
>
> If ULE is in fact the current recommendation, then a few docs need to be
> updated.
I noticed this in the sched_ule(4) man page as well. ULE is said to
be experimental and refers the reader to a non-existent BUGS section
(removed before RELENG_7 was created). The commit log also states
that "ULE is no longer buggy or experimental", so at the very least,
the man page is slightly inconsistent with itself and its last commit
log.
Jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080120185858.GA17909>