Not really. It would mean that the priority of the non-running
SETI@home will increase (slightly) and that your running
process will switch CPU when its priority gets lower than that
of the non-running seti...
Of course this doesn't have to happen, but to be honest I think
that the alternative is worse. Suppose that the seti on the
"busy" cpu doesn't get run, and another process in the system
needs a kernel lock that that seti happens to hold ... system
activity will stall for quite a while until the calculation is
over and the seti@home is able to proceed and release the lock.
Which could take a long time ...
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/