lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Return value from schedule()
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another task, we
> > could do something like:
> >
> > if (!schedule())
> > udelay(10);
>
> hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher prio
> variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really want to
> promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any chance of any
> polling to take a material amount of CPU time it should be event driven
> to begin with.

Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI bus
utilisation. Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead where
I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds?

Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there?

--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-04 18:23    [W:1.072 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site