Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

[Con Kolivas]

On Friday 02 June 2006 14:18, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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.

Thanks

> Nice to acknowledge Chris's idea for 
> trylocks in your changelog when you submit a final patch.

I absolutely would and I would ask for him to sign off on it as well, once we 
agreed on a final form.

-- 
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/