Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:34:55 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1 |
| |
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> However the issue with keventd and the fact we can get away with a > single per-cpu counter increase in the scheduler fast path made us to > think it's cleaner to just spend such cycle for each schedule rather > than having yet another 8k per cpu wasted and longer taskslists (a > local cpu increase is cheaper than a conditional jump).
So why don't we put the test+branch inside keventd ?
wakeup_krcud(void) { krcud_wanted = 1; wakeup(&keventd); }
cheers,
Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860.
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |