[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:21:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
michael trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/22] sched: add a syscall to wait for the next
instance
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:35 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
>
> Introduce sched_wait_interval() syscall (and scheduling class
> interface call). In general, this aims at providing each scheduling
> class with a mean of making one of its own task sleep for some time
> according to some specific rule of the scheduling class itself.
>
Did we have an actual use case for this? I seem to remember that the
last time we seemed to thing job wakeups are due to external events, in
which case we don't need this.
I think we should try without this patch first and only consider this
once we merged the base functionality and have a solid use-case for
this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists