Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:40:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:40:04 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:13204 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:39:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:35:49 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: mingo@elte.hu To: Joe Korty Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.18 scheduler bugs In-Reply-To: <200203152125.VAA27707@rudolph.ccur.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Joe Korty wrote: > >> Idle tasks nowdays don't spin waiting for need->resched to change, > >> they sleep on a halt insn instead. Therefore any setting of > >> need->resched on an idle task running on a remote CPU should be > >> accompanied by a cross-processor interrupt. > > > > this is broken as well. Check out the idle=poll feature i wrote some time > > ago. > > The idle=poll stuff is a hack. [...] it's a feature. > [...] I'd like my idle cpus to sleep and still have them wake up the > moment work for them becomes available. I see no reason why an idle cpu > should be forced to remain idle until the next tick, nor why fixing that > should be considered `broken'. performance. IPIs are expensive. Ingo - 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/