[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070718003534.09241186@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:35:34 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux console project <linuxconsole-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
O> In that case, we might as well just always do the scheduled_delayed_work()
> with a zero timeout as per the earlier patch. I'd still like to know who
> *cares*, though? Why not leave it at 1?
I don't think it really matters too much on modern systems so long as we
keep the flush_to_ldisc out of IRQ context. Historically we tried to
batch the ldisc processing but I doubt any modern box cares too much
-
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