From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:17:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:16:54 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:10765 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:16:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:16:52 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Rik van Riel Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1 Message-ID: <20010916201652.A1315@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010916192316.A13248@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:34:55PM -0300 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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