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 09:34:37
   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

OK, why can't we use a single value instead of a per-cpu one?