Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:02:05 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: reschedule_idle |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Umm, check the stock definition of related(): if the two tasks are >related then we know for sure that they both want the kernel lock. We >cannot possibly find a related task if there is only one task waiting >for the global lock.
If the only two tasks in the system that wants the kernel lock are the wakenup task and the current-running task, then rescheduling the wakenup task in _place_ of the current task will work _fine_. There _won't_ be any contention of the lock simply because the current task will go offline waiting the next schedule sleeping in the _run_queue.
Andrea Arcangeli
- 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/
| |