On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > 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." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
