On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another task, we
> > could do something like:
> > 
> > 		if (!schedule())
> > 			udelay(10);
> 
> hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher prio 
> variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really want to 
> promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any chance of any 
> polling to take a material amount of CPU time it should be event driven 
> to begin with.

Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI bus
utilisation.  Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead where
I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds?

Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
unsubscribe notice
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/