Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range |
| |
On 22 Jul 2002, Robert Love wrote: > > Sure. What do you think of this?
How about adding an "cond_resched_lock()" primitive?
You can do it better as a primitive than as the written-out thing (the spin_unlock() doesn't need to conditionally test the scheduling point again, it can just unconditionally call schedule())
And there might be other places that want to drop a lock before scheduling anyway.
Linus
- 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/
| |