On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:24:05PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:50:50PM +0200, dragoran wrote: > > > this would mean that we will might end up having cfs as the scheduler > > and tickless x86_64. > > I mostly using x86_64 ... where there any major problems (exept the dell > > one) related to tickless kernels in the F7 cycle? > > Too early to say really. There were a number of oddball bugs > that still aren't really understood that could be related, > but on the whole it hasn't been /that/ bad considering the > amount of code that changed. I've generally been including Thomas's (pre-dynticks) hrtimers patch in my custom kernels since 2.6.15, but after upgrading lots of boxes to FC6, we've been running stock Fedora kernels (FC6 and FC7t*) on lots of boxes. While there have been minor problems on x86, on x86_64 we experienced severe NTP timekeeping regressions (including losing sync) due mostly to various hardware latency problems (SATA chipsets problems, SMI, etc.). The x86_64 hrtimers patchset works around the problem, and everything keep times to within a millisecond. So I hope to see the x86_64 tickless patches upstream ASAP. Regards, Bill _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
