* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> This way when process C tries to get the lock again, it sees that it's
> owned, but B hasn't executed yet. So it would be safe for C to take
> the lock back from B, that is if C is greater priority than B,
> otherwise it would act the same.
agreed. In particular this would be a nice optimization for cases where
tasks are delayed for a longer time due to CPU congestion (e.g. lots of
tasks on the same SCHED_FIFO priority). So if a higher prio task comes
along while the
> If you agree with this approach, I would be willing to write a patch
> for you.
yeah - please do.
Ingo
-
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]
