Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |