Re: SCHED_IDLE patch

Rik van Riel (H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:31:17 +0200 (CEST)


On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > [the >= thing is ugly, we should rather use bitmasks for scheduling
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, I get your point.

> > > classes, thus we could do a 'prev->policy & (SCHED_RR | SCHED_IDLE)'
> > > to check with a single branch instruction.
> >
> > That won't work. (SCHED_RR | SCHED_IDLE) = 0x3; SCHED_FIFO = 0x1.
> > Well, that basically would mean breaking SCHED_FIFO semantics ;))

Unfortunately, it would break libc compatibility. I
had the lines in sched.h this afternoon, but I decided
not to include them because it would mean binary
incompatibility...

Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

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