Re: [uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
11 Mar 1998 18:44:30 GMT

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980310215746.30837A-100000@chiara.csoma.elte.hu>
By author: MOLNAR Ingo <mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > - /* .. and a slight advantage to the current process */
> > > - if (p == prev)
> > > + /* .. and a slight advantage to the current thread */
> > > + if (p->mm == prev->mm)
> > > weight += 1;
> > > }
> >
> > But why remove the if (p == prev) test?
> > It seems valid to me...
>
> if p==prev then the p->mm==prev->mm condition will be always true ...
>

Incidentally, the comments are backwards; the (p == prev) gives an
advantage to the current *thread*, the (p->mm == prev->mm) gives an
advantage to the current *process* (but possibly a different thread
within the same process.)

-hpa

-- 
    PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD  1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
    See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
        I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
   "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu