Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:19 PM
> 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.
Yes, as far as the lock is concerned in dependent_sleeper(), it looks
pretty good. I do have other comments that I will follow up in another
thread.
- Ken
-
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]
