On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am I assuming correctly that simple_smp suffers from the same problem? Are > you going to apply the change to it, too? Looks like it does, I'm assuming Axel simply overlooked that scheduler_simple_smp is its own file and meant to apply it to that one. Though scheduler_simple having it for the 1-CPU folks doesn't hurt either. Regards, Rene