On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > While we are at it: Take the opportunity to avoid taking
> > the request queue lock in wake_priority_sleeper if
> > there are no running processes.
>
> Can you split this out? It is good without the tasklet based
> rebalancing.
Sure next rollup will have this:
Avoid taking the rq lock in wake_priority sleeper
Avoid taking the request queue lock in wake_priority_sleeper if
there are no running processes.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-10-26 11:13:29.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/kernel/sched.c 2006-10-26 11:16:44.896476659 -0500
@@ -2900,6 +2900,9 @@ static inline int wake_priority_sleeper(
int ret = 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
+ if (!rq->nr_running)
+ return 0;
+
spin_lock(&rq->lock);
/*
* If an SMT sibling task has been put to sleep for priority
-
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]
