lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.0 schedule_tick question
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Der Herr Hofrat wrote:

> > Yes, we could have a rotate_task() function but the impact is basically
> > zero because of the little overhead compared to the frequency of the
> > operation.
> >
> ok - well maby someone wants to drop it in any way as its
> trivial and actually it would be easier to read if the function name
> were rotate_task and not dequeue/enqueu to implement RR behavior.

Try to push a patch to Ingo. We already had a move_last_runqueue() in 2.4,
but since now we have names like xxxx_task(), I believe rotate_task()
sounds better.



- Davide


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.040 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site