[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.021 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site