Hi!
> > > What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard'
> > > with OS'ses that display the idle task.
> >
> > Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is
> > in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast.
>
> Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two
> idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a
> separate apm idle task has a purpose.
You can't do that. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system
stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM
bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal
as it can be.
Pavel
-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:28 EST