lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ...
Date

>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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.026 / U:1.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site