Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2006 01:24:57 -0700 |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:19 PM > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Friday 02 June 2006 12:28, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > >>Actually looking even further, we only introduced the extra lookup of the > >>next task when we started unlocking the runqueue in schedule(). Since we > >>can get by without locking this_rq in schedule with this approach we can > >>simplify dependent_sleeper even further by doing the dependent sleeper > >>check after we have discovered what next is in schedule and avoid looking > >>it up twice. I'll hack something up to do that soon. > > > > > > Something like this (sorry I couldn't help but keep hacking on it). > > Looking pretty good. Nice to acknowledge Chris's idea for > trylocks in your changelog when you submit a final patch.
Yes, as far as the lock is concerned in dependent_sleeper(), it looks pretty good. I do have other comments that I will follow up in another thread.
- Ken - 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/
| |