Subject: Re: Moving scheduler semantics from cpu_switch() to kern_synch.c
To: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 09/19/2006 13:28:22
matthew green wrote:
> Instead cpu_idle() should I think we should add a member to cpu_info
> which indicates cpu_idle should continue to loop. When nonzero, it
> represents that there may be a new lwp to be run.
> why can't this just use sched_whichqs instead of a new member?
Because we are trying to make the MD routines be independent of the
Matt Thomas email: firstname.lastname@example.org
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.