On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> However the issue with keventd and the fact we can get away with a
> single per-cpu counter increase in the scheduler fast path made us to
> think it's cleaner to just spend such cycle for each schedule rather
> than having yet another 8k per cpu wasted and longer taskslists (a
> local cpu increase is cheaper than a conditional jump).
So why don't we put the test+branch inside keventd ?
wakeup_krcud(void)
{
krcud_wanted = 1;
wakeup(&keventd);
}
cheers,
Rik
-- IA64: a worthy successor to i860.http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:14 EST