> William Lee Irwin III wrote: On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: >> Your cpu_idle routines need to obey the following rules: >> The cpu_idle() routines you suggest return, which is "unexpected" >> (AFAICT even on i386). Mind explaining how is this supposed to work?
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:08:58PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Eek! They shouldn't. > That would be a bug... but I don't see it (in i386) > i386's mwait_idle, default_idle, poll_idle, etc. of course will > return (when need_resched() goes high). Then cpu_idle() will then > call schedule() > Or did the list of rules erroneously imply that it should return? > Anyway, thanks for casting your eye over this, much appreciated. I think I misread the diff, sorry. -- wli
