Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 02 June 2006 12:28, Con Kolivas wrote:
Actually looking even further, we only introduced the extra lookup of the
next task when we started unlocking the runqueue in schedule(). Since we
can get by without locking this_rq in schedule with this approach we can
simplify dependent_sleeper even further by doing the dependent sleeper
check after we have discovered what next is in schedule and avoid looking
it up twice. I'll hack something up to do that soon.
Something like this (sorry I couldn't help but keep hacking on it).
Looking pretty good. Nice to acknowledge Chris's idea for
trylocks in your changelog when you submit a final patch.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
