![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>i'd prefer the much simpler patch below. This also keeps the kernel >>preemption logic isolated instead of mixing it into the normal path. >> >> > >That patch still gets several cases wrong: we don't update any counters at >all for the case where we were TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and we got made >TASK_RUNNING because of having a signal pending. > >Also, we shouldn't update the context switch counter just because we >entered the scheduler. If we don't actually end up switching to anything >else, it shouldn't count as a context switch. > >So how about something like this? > >Totally untested. Comments? > > Thats about as good as you'll get it, I think. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||