Re: [PATCH] staircase scheduler v6.4 for 2.6.7-rc3

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:04:23AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> There was no need to add the extra overhead of a flag to indicate that a 
> task was queued for scheduling.  Testing whether run_list is empty 
> achieves the same thing as reliably as the old array == NULL test did.

Overhead? Doubtful. Also, that requires the use of list_del_init()
while dequeueing, which is not in place now. Please do back the claim
with measurements. It should be easy enough to nop out set_task_queued(),
implement task_queued() via !list_empty(), and clear_task_queued() via
INIT_LIST_HEAD() for a quick performance comparison. But I'd say to
merge it even if there's no difference, as it's more self-contained.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/