On 03/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:44:29PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > > The original reason for l_wait_event() not using TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > > is to avoid the load on the server continually being "num_service_threads" > > regardless of whether they are actually doing something or not. We > > added various cases for periodic wakeups and such afterward. > > Hmm, maybe we should finally do the TASK_IDLE thing; > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/12/710
Agreed. And if we are not going to expose TASK_IDLE bit in /proc/ (I think we should not) the patch should be really trivial. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
