![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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. Thanks > 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. -- -ck - 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: 2006-06-02 06:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||