[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:0.020 / U:39.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site