On 07/02/17(Tue) 11:15, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On 7 February 2017 at 10:12, Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06/02/17(Mon) 17:18, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > >> On 6 February 2017 at 17:02, Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> 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. > >> > > >> > So let's use the same idiom, I promise to introduce a macro an unify all > >> > of them once this is in. > >> > > >> > ok? > >> > > >> > >> Why not replace YIELD with sched_pause() then? > > > > Because we use preempt() for userland processes and I don't want to > > introduce a difference for this case. > > > > Why we do that is a different topic. > > they look almost the same esp. with your upcoming change to preempt, > but if you think this is better then go ahead, i'd say.
They look the same if you look at the code, not if you look at counters and try to analyze what has been happening in the life of a process.
