lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lowlatency-2.2.14-B1 + 2.2.14aa7 fixes crash, but...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> This is the diff for the free_inode conditional schedule. The spin_unlock
> thing probably couldn't harm since such code is all under the big kernel
> lock too in 2.2.x.
>
[snip...]
> list_entry(tmp, struct inode, i_list)->i_state = I_FREEING;
> found++;
> +
> + if (current->need_resched && !resched) {
> + INODE(tmp)->i_count++;
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> +
> + schedule();
> + iput(INODE(tmp));
> +
> + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + resched = 1;
> + goto again;
> + }
> }
>
> return found;

Why did you move the resched code out of the "if (!CAN_UNUSE(INODE(tmp)))"
conditional? Won't that make the code less likely to be executed and
increase scheduling latency?

Wm


-
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 13:56    [W:0.126 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site