Subject: Re: Moving scheduler semantics from cpu_switch() to kern_synch.c
To: matthew green <>
From: Matt Thomas <>
List: tech-kern
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:
3am Software Foundry              www:
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.