Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1

Rik van Riel
2001-09-16T17:35:25Z

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 ?

wakeup_krcud(void)
{
krcud_wanted = 1;
wakeup(&keventd);
}

cheers,

Rik
--
IA64: a worthy successor to i860.

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)