Re: SCHED_IDLE patch

MOLNAR Ingo (mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:59:11 +0200 (CEST)


On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > [the >= thing is ugly, we should rather use bitmasks for scheduling
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > classes, thus we could do a 'prev->policy & (SCHED_RR | SCHED_IDLE)'
> > to check with a single branch instruction.
>
> That won't work. (SCHED_RR | SCHED_IDLE) = 0x3; SCHED_FIFO = 0x1.
> Well, that basically would mean breaking SCHED_FIFO semantics ;))

-- mingo

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