[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:
    On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:36:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > For stuff like ___wait_on_page(), OTOH, you really want FIFO
    > wakeup to avoid starvation (yes, I know we're currently doing

    Sure agreed. In my _whole_ previous email I was only talking about accept.
    Semaphores file locking etc.. all needs FIFO for fairness as you said.

    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 12:45    [W:0.022 / U:24.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site