From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] task_isolation: add initial support Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20160830075949.GA10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1471382376-5443-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@mellanox.com> <1471382376-5443-5-git-send-email-cmetcalf@mellanox.com> <20160829163352.GV10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160829164809.GW10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Christoph Lameter , Viresh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andy Lutomirski , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > Would it be cleaner to just replace the set_tsk_need_resched() call > with something like: > > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > schedule(); > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > or what would you recommend? That'll just get you to sleep _forever_... > Or, as I said, just doing a busy loop here while testing to see > if need_resched or signal had been set? Why do you care about need_resched() and or signals? How is that related to the tick being stopped or not? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org