Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:11:22 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07 |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > i think this should be covered by the 'unschedule/unwakeup' feature, > > mentioned in the latest mails. > > The first implementation would probably just be the setting of a > "pending owner" bit. But the better one may be to unschedule. But, > what would the overhead be for unscheduling. Since you need to grab > the run queue locks for that. This might make for an interesting case > study. The waking up of a process who had the lock stolen may not > happen that much. The lock stealing, would (as I see in my runs) > happen quite a bit though. But on UP, the waking of the robbed owner, > would never happen, unless it also owned a lock that a higher priority > process wanted.
yeah, lets skip the unscheduling for now, the 'pending owner' bit is the important one.
Ingo - 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/
| |