lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: reschedule_idle
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

>Umm, check the stock definition of related(): if the two tasks are
>related then we know for sure that they both want the kernel lock. We
>cannot possibly find a related task if there is only one task waiting
>for the global lock.

If the only two tasks in the system that wants the kernel lock are the
wakenup task and the current-running task, then rescheduling the wakenup
task in _place_ of the current task will work _fine_. There _won't_ be any
contention of the lock simply because the current task will go offline
waiting the next schedule sleeping in the _run_queue.

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.281 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site