Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:37:42 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Significant performace improvements on reiserfs systems |
| |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:24:48PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: > On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 17:11, Dieter Nützel wrote: > > > 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. > > hrm, i didnt notice that conditional_schedule wasnt defined in that > patch. you will need to do it, but do something more like > > if (current->need_resched && current->lock_depth == 0) { > unlock_kernel(); > lock_kernel(); > } > > like Andrew wrote.
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:
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.2/2.2.20pre10aa1/72_copy-user-unlock-1
Andrea - 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/
|  |