[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:
> >
> > > > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
> > > > is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
> > >
> > > couldn't it just be indicated on actual locking the resource?
> >
> > It could, but I doubt we would want this overhead on the locking...
> Seems like you are sneaking up on priority inherit mutexes.
> The locking over head is not so bad (same as spinlock, except in
> UP case, where it is the same as the SMP case). The unlock is,
> however, the same as the lock overhead. It is hard to beat the
> store of zero which is the spin_unlock.

Hmmm, what would this look like ?

(we need the same code if we want to do decent load
control for the VM, where we suspend tasks when the
load gets too high)

Linux MM bugzilla:

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.140 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site