[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Eugeny S. Mints wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> >If you keep it in priority order, then you're paying the O(n) cost
> >every time you acquire a lock. If you keep it unordered and only
> >search it when you need to recalculate a task's priority after a lock
> >has been released (or priorities have been changed), you pay the cost
> >much less often. Plus, the number of locks held by any given thread
> >should generally be very small.
> As to locks held by any given thread - it's not always true - take a
> look at mm/filemap.c locks nesting map in comments.

I guess it depends on the definition of "very small" and "generally".

A nesting of 5 locks is pushing the limits of "very small", but it's
still no big deal to iterate over once in a while.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.518 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site