On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > now that the atomic flag is gone, the yield diff is simpler. once again,
> > the idea is that unbounded (or of unknown bounds) loops in the kernel are
> > bad because you hog the cpu. so be polite and yiel
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > now that the atomic flag is gone, the yield diff is simpler. once again,
> > the idea is that unbounded (or of unknown bounds) loops in the kernel are
> > bad because you hog the cpu. so be polite and yiel
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
> now that the atomic flag is gone, the yield diff is simpler. once again,
> the idea is that unbounded (or of unknown bounds) loops in the kernel are
> bad because you hog the cpu. so be polite and yield from time to time.
>
> anybody use tables heavil
now that the atomic flag is gone, the yield diff is simpler. once again,
the idea is that unbounded (or of unknown bounds) loops in the kernel are
bad because you hog the cpu. so be polite and yield from time to time.
anybody use tables heavily want to give it a test? :)
Index: pf_table.c
===
