Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 1:56 AM
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
>
> > Ha, you beat me by one minute. It did cross my mind to use try lock there as
> > well, take a look at my version, I think I have a better inner loop.
>
> Actually you *have* to use trylocks I think, because the current runqueue
> is already locked.
You are absolutely correct. I forgot about the lock ordering.
> And why do we lock all siblings in the other case, for that matter? (not
> that it makes much difference except on niagara today).
>
> Rolled up patch with everyone's changes attached.
What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
resched other low priority sibling tasks? I think it would be better
to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.
- 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]
