Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:16:52 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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).
Andrea - 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/
|  |