NO_HZ_LEAVE_ME_THE_FSCK_ALONE! On Sat, 9 May 2015 09:05:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I think we should either rename NO_HZ_FULL to NO_HZ_PURE, or keep > it at NO_HZ_FULL: because the intention of NO_HZ_FULL was always to be > such a 'zero overhead' mode of operation, where if user-space runs, it > won't get interrupted in any way. All kidding aside, I think this is the real answer. We don't need a new NO_HZ, we need to make NO_HZ_FULL work. Right now it doesn't do exactly what it was created to do. That should be fixed. Please lets get NO_HZ_FULL up to par. That should be the main focus. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
