[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.10pre7aa1
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:34:55PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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 ?

first keventd runs non RT, second it slowsdown keventd but I agree that
would be a minor issue. The best approch to me seems the one I
outlined in the last email (per-cpu sequence counter as only additional
cost in schedule).

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 13:03    [W:0.041 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site