[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: kapm-idled : is this a bug?

> > > What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard'
> > > with OS'ses that display the idle task.
> >
> > Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is
> > in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast.
> Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two
> idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a
> separate apm idle task has a purpose.

You can't do that. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system
stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM
bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal
as it can be.
I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.192 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site