Subject: re: Moving scheduler semantics from cpu_switch() to kern_synch.c To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Matt Thomas <email@example.com> From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?