[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity

    Rob Landley wrote:

    >On Tuesday 05 August 2003 06:32, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >>But by employing the kernel's services in the shape of a blocking
    >>syscall, all sleeps are intentional.
    >Wrong. Some sleeps indicate "I have run out of stuff to do right now, I'm
    >going to wait for a timer or another process or something to wake me up with
    >new work".
    >Some sleeps indicate "ideally this would run on an enormous ramdisk attached
    >to gigabit ethernet, but hard drives and internet connections are just too
    >slow so my true CPU-hogness is hidden by the fact I'm running on a PC instead
    >of a mainframe."

    I don't quite understand what you are getting at, but if you don't want to
    sleep you should be able to use a non blocking syscall. But in some cases
    I think there are times when you may not be able to use a non blocking call.

    And if a process is a CPU hog, its a CPU hog. If its not its not. Doesn't
    matter how it would behave on another system.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.019 / U:54.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site