Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 07/02/17(Tue) 10:29, Ted Unangst wrote: > > Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > PF has its own home-brewed solution for dealing with CPU hogging. It > > > has been introduced in r1.88 of net/pf_table.c and I couldn't find any > > > explanation why it is different than the idiom we use in other places. > > > > oh, just because i didn't bother making them all the same. > > > > > > > > So let's use the same idiom, I promise to introduce a macro an unify all > > > of them once this is in. > > > > so i think sched_pause is supposed to be that macro, but gets into the > > preempt > > vs yield debate. > > I want to introduce a sched_preempt() and convert all the current > callers of preempt() in a second step. Does that sound like a plan?
spitballing... a sched_pause() macro that takes the function to call? sched_pause(yield) or sched_pause(preempt). is that more clear? i think it's less mysterious what happens. The only problem is that preempt requires a NULL argument, but after 30 years of not fixing that, I'd say we can also just delete the argument.
