Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:28:00 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug? |
| |
Hi!
> > > 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. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |