> It is a short busy wait before falling asleep. I assume you mean > busy wait is a loss even on SMP? eh yeah I forgot to think for a second. But yes even for SMP busy wait is pretty bad power wise nowadays.. at least if you wait more than a few hundred cycles. (and if you wait less... then it's almost unlikely that it'll be useful as well) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- Index(es):
 |