Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Return value from schedule() |
| |
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another task, we > > could do something like: > > > > if (!schedule()) > > udelay(10); > > hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher prio > variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really want to > promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any chance of any > polling to take a material amount of CPU time it should be event driven > to begin with.
Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI bus utilisation. Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead where I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds?
Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there?
-- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."
| |