Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:18:48 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Friday 02 June 2006 12:28, Con Kolivas wrote: > >>Actually looking even further, we only introduced the extra lookup of the >>next task when we started unlocking the runqueue in schedule(). Since we >>can get by without locking this_rq in schedule with this approach we can >>simplify dependent_sleeper even further by doing the dependent sleeper >>check after we have discovered what next is in schedule and avoid looking >>it up twice. I'll hack something up to do that soon. > > > Something like this (sorry I couldn't help but keep hacking on it).
Looking pretty good. Nice to acknowledge Chris's idea for trylocks in your changelog when you submit a final patch.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.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/
| |