lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Significant performace improvements on reiserfs systems
From
Date
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 18:37, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:24:48PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > if (current->need_resched && current->lock_depth == 0) {
> > unlock_kernel();
> > lock_kernel();
> > }

> nitpicking: the above is fine but it isn't complete, it may work for
> most cases but for a generic function it would be better implemented
> similarly to release_kernel_lock_save/restore so you take care of
> lock_depth > 0 too:

Let me explain a little about the patch, and then I am interested in if
your opinion changes.

When unlock_kernel() is called, the preemption code will be enabled and
check if the preemption count is non-zero -- its handled just like a
recursive lock. If there are other locks held, preemption won't
happen. Thus, we return to the caller code patch and lock_kernel() is
called and everyone is happy.

If unlock_kernel() is called, and the preemption code (which hangs off
the bottom of the locking code) sees that the lock depth is now 0, it
will call preempt_schedule (if needed) and allow a new process to run.
Then we return to the original code patch, call lock_kernel, and
continue.

Or am I missing something?

--
Robert M. Love
rml at ufl.edu
rml at tech9.net

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.095 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site