lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: flock(fd, LOCK_UN) taking 500ms+ ?
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:04:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> sched_yield() sementics changed a lot. It used to mean "take a quick
> nap", but it now means "go to the back of the runqueue and stay there
> for absolutely ages". The latter is a closer interpretation of the spec,
> but it has broken stuff which was tuned to the old behaviour.

*nod*. This code has been around for many many years ;-)

> It's not really clear why that yield is in there at all? Unless that
> code is really, really slow (milliseconds) then probably it should just
> be deleted.

Heh, you're so focused on perf tuning, Andrew! It's not a matter of
locking, it's a matter of semantics. Here's the comment:

* FL_FLOCK locks never deadlock, an existing lock is always removed before
* upgrading from shared to exclusive (or vice versa). When this happens
* any processes blocked by the current lock are woken up and allowed to
* run before the new lock is applied.
* Andy Walker (andy@lysaker.kvaerner.no), June 09, 1995

> If there really is a solid need to hand the CPU over to some now-runnable
> higher-priority process then a cond_resched() will suffice.

I think that's the right thing to do. If I understand right, we'll
check needs_resched at syscall exit, so we don't need to do it for
unlocks, right?

--
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.378 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site