lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> I could of course propose this... but I really won't since I'm half
> retching by now.. ;-)

Wow. Is this "ugly and fragile code week" and I just didn't get the memo?

I do wonder if we might not fix the problem by just taking the
*existing* lock in the right order?

IOW, how nasty would be it be to make "scheduler_tick()" just get the
cputimer->lock outside or rq->lock?

Sure, we'd hold that lock *much* longer than we need, but how much do
we care? Is that a lock that gets contention? It migth be the simple
solution for now - I *would* like to get 3.1 out..

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-17 20:35    [W:0.771 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site