[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160830075949.GA10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] task_isolation: add initial support
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Would it be cleaner to just replace the set_tsk_need_resched() call
> with something like:
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> schedule();
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> or what would you recommend?
That'll just get you to sleep _forever_...
> Or, as I said, just doing a busy loop here while testing to see
> if need_resched or signal had been set?
Why do you care about need_resched() and or signals? How is that related
to the tick being stopped or not?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists