Re: [PATCH] 2.4.18 scheduler bugs

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:58:13 +0000 (GMT)

> > moment work for them becomes available. I see no reason why an idle cpu
> > should be forced to remain idle until the next tick, nor why fixing that
> > should be considered `broken'.
>
> performance. IPIs are expensive.

On a PIII I can see this being the case, especially as they dont power save
on hlt nowdays. But on the Athlon the IPI isnt going down a little side
channel between cpus.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/