On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:34:55PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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 ?
first keventd runs non RT, second it slowsdown keventd but I agree that
would be a minor issue. The best approch to me seems the one I
outlined in the last email (per-cpu sequence counter as only additional
cost in schedule).
Andrea
-
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 - 21:00:15 EST