[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:36:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> For stuff like ___wait_on_page(), OTOH, you really want FIFO
> wakeup to avoid starvation (yes, I know we're currently doing

Sure agreed. In my _whole_ previous email I was only talking about accept.
Semaphores file locking etc.. all needs FIFO for fairness as you said.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.102 / U:0.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site