[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:0.162 / U:18.580 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site