On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> [snip]
>
> If I get time, I might be able to finish this up, if the changes look
> decent, and don't cause too much overhead.
This was the answer I was hoping for! I'll try to get time to test and
improve myself ofcourse.
As for optimization: I take and release the current->pi_lock and
owner->pi_lock a lot because it isn't allowed to have both locks. Some
code restructuring could probably improve it such that it first finishes
what it has to finish under current->pi_lock then does what it has to do
under the owner->pi_lock - or the other way around.
In a few places pi_lock is taken without just to be sure. It might be
removed.
But first we have to establish the principle. Then optimization can begin.
Esben
>
> -- Steve
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
