Messages in this thread | | | From | "Davide Libenzi" <> | Subject | Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ... | Date | Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:58:25 +0200 |
| |
>I think we should wakeup the last process that gone to sleep even in the >up() case. We should simple ask for an EXCLUSIVE wakeup. > >Here a patch to do that:
I don't agree here. I think that we need a goodness() loop calculation in __sem_wake_up() to extract the more suitable task. Suppose You have a lot of processes waiting on a semaphore with a number of waiting tasks is always > 0. Is this case the first process entered in wait queue never goes executed.
With a goodness loop solution a waiting task accumulate priority in counter and it will exist an exit door for the poor task.
Cheers, Davide.
-- "Debian, the Freedom in Freedom"
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |