![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Esben Nielsen wrote: > [snip] > > If I get time, I might be able to finish this up, if the changes look > decent, and don't cause too much overhead. This was the answer I was hoping for! I'll try to get time to test and improve myself ofcourse. As for optimization: I take and release the current->pi_lock and owner->pi_lock a lot because it isn't allowed to have both locks. Some code restructuring could probably improve it such that it first finishes what it has to finish under current->pi_lock then does what it has to do under the owner->pi_lock - or the other way around. In a few places pi_lock is taken without just to be sure. It might be removed. But first we have to establish the principle. Then optimization can begin. Esben > > -- Steve > > - > 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/ > - 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: 2006-01-11 21:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||