Subject: re: Moving scheduler semantics from cpu_switch() to kern_synch.c
To:, Matt Thomas <>
From: matthew green <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/20/2006 05:27:11
   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?