[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
On Friday 02 June 2006 14:18, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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.

I absolutely would and I would ask for him to sign off on it as well, once we
agreed on a final form.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-02 08:11    [W:0.071 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site