Messages in this thread |  | | From | Dieter Nützel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Significant performace improvements on reiserfs systems | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:11:56 +0200 |
| |
Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2001 22:52 schrieb Robert Love: > On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 13:39, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Andrew, are these still maintained or should I pull out the reiserfs > > > bits? > > > > This is the reiserfs part - it applies to 2.4.10-pre12 OK. > > > > For the purposes of Robert's patch, conditional_schedule() > > should be defined as > > > > if (current->need_resched && current->lock_depth == 0) { > > unlock_kernel(); > > lock_kernel(); > > } > > > > which is somewhat crufty, because the implementation of lock_kernel() > > is arch-specific. But all architectures seem to implement it the same > > way.
> > <patch snipped> > > Looks nice, Andrew. > > Anyone try this? (I don't use ReiserFS).
Yes, I will...:-) Send it along.
> > I am putting together a conditional scheduling patch to fix some of the > worst cases, for use in conjunction with the preemption patch, and this > might be useful.
The conditional_schedule() function hampered me from running it already.
-Dieter - 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/
|  |