Subject: Re: Further scheduler changes
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/20/2006 22:04:51
> > One 'really useful feature' that any change should allow for is
> > process affinities (ie tying a process to a physical cpu).
> I should note that we have already been offered a patch to do this, by
> Christian Limpach. It was rejected -- to my utter disbelief -- by an
> influential developer because, since it packed "which run queue am I
> on" into an integer with one bit per CPU, it would require later revision
> to accomodate systems with more than 32 processors.
> I think this is a canonical example of how the best is the enemy of the
> good. ;-) But perhaps when I get a 32-chip system, I will feel otherwise.
are you talking about these mails?
i can't read it as "rejected" as you say repeatedly.