Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:51:31 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity |
| |
Rob Landley wrote:
>On Tuesday 05 August 2003 06:32, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>But by employing the kernel's services in the shape of a blocking >>syscall, all sleeps are intentional. >> > >Wrong. Some sleeps indicate "I have run out of stuff to do right now, I'm >going to wait for a timer or another process or something to wake me up with >new work". > > > >Some sleeps indicate "ideally this would run on an enormous ramdisk attached >to gigabit ethernet, but hard drives and internet connections are just too >slow so my true CPU-hogness is hidden by the fact I'm running on a PC instead >of a mainframe." >
I don't quite understand what you are getting at, but if you don't want to sleep you should be able to use a non blocking syscall. But in some cases I think there are times when you may not be able to use a non blocking call.
And if a process is a CPU hog, its a CPU hog. If its not its not. Doesn't matter how it would behave on another system.
- 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/
| |