Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

On Friday 02 June 2006 13:04, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Sure, you have the hack lock. Actually we can just trylock and if it fails
> remove it from the sibling_map and go to out_unlock without a separate
> trylock_smt_cpus function entirely...

I mean go to out_unlock if the sibling_map is empty sorry.

-- 
-ck
-
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/

---

• References:
  • RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
    • From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps
• Next by Date: Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
• Next by thread: [PATCH-rt]: Add missing headers to clocksource.h
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]