Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:49 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] task_isolation: add initial support |
| |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Would it be cleaner to just replace the set_tsk_need_resched() call > with something like: > > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > schedule(); > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > or what would you recommend?
That'll just get you to sleep _forever_...
> Or, as I said, just doing a busy loop here while testing to see > if need_resched or signal had been set?
Why do you care about need_resched() and or signals? How is that related to the tick being stopped or not?
| |