Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:58:36 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? |
| |
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote: > > > > > > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task > > > > is holding some kernel-side lock ;) > > > > > > couldn't it just be indicated on actual locking the resource? > > > > It could, but I doubt we would want this overhead on the locking... > > Seems like you are sneaking up on priority inherit mutexes. > The locking over head is not so bad (same as spinlock, except in > UP case, where it is the same as the SMP case). The unlock is, > however, the same as the lock overhead. It is hard to beat the > store of zero which is the spin_unlock.
Hmmm, what would this look like ?
(we need the same code if we want to do decent load control for the VM, where we suspend tasks when the load gets too high)
Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |