From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265436AbUAKRcj (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:32:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265468AbUAKRcj (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:32:39 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:35491 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265436AbUAKRci (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:32:38 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Der Herr Hofrat cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.6.0 schedule_tick question In-Reply-To: <200401101722.i0AHM3l17594@hofr.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Der Herr Hofrat wrote: > > Yes, we could have a rotate_task() function but the impact is basically > > zero because of the little overhead compared to the frequency of the > > operation. > > > ok - well maby someone wants to drop it in any way as its > trivial and actually it would be easier to read if the function name > were rotate_task and not dequeue/enqueu to implement RR behavior. Try to push a patch to Ingo. We already had a move_last_runqueue() in 2.4, but since now we have names like xxxx_task(), I believe rotate_task() sounds better. - Davide