Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1

Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-16T18:17:03Z

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