Re: 2.6.0 schedule_tick question

[Davide Libenzi]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Der Herr Hofrat wrote:

> > Yes, we could have a rotate_task() function but the impact is basically 
> > zero because of the little overhead compared to the frequency of the 
> > operation.
> >
> ok - well maby someone wants to drop it in any way as its
> trivial and actually it would be easier to read if the function name
> were rotate_task and not dequeue/enqueu to implement RR behavior.

Try to push a patch to Ingo. We already had a move_last_runqueue() in 2.4, 
but since now we have names like xxxx_task(), I believe rotate_task() 
sounds better.



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/