Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:38:12 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? |
| |
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... > > Rik
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.
George - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |