On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 22:53 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Add /proc/sys/kernel/lateral_steal, to allow switching on and off > > equal-priority mutex stealing between threads. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > > > > > #include "rtmutex_common.h" > >
I'll move it to the header file. > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RTLOCK_LATERAL_STEAL > > +int rtmutex_lateral_steal __read_mostly = 1; > > +#endif > > + > > Ugly.. > > > > /* > > * lock->owner state tracking: > > * > > @@ -321,7 +325,8 @@ static inline int lock_is_stealable(struct task_struct > > *pendowner, int unfair) > > if (current->prio > pendowner->prio) > > return 0; > > > > - if (!unfair && (current->prio == pendowner->prio)) > > + if (unlikely(current->prio == pendowner->prio) && > > + !(unfair && rtmutex_lateral_steal)) > > #endif > > But this is even worse, you are creating #ifdef maze here. Can you > simply #define rtmutex_lateral_steal 0 in !CONFIG_RTLOCK_LATERAL_STEAL > and let the optimizer fix this? > Ok - much of this will also disappear into the header then. > > > index c913d48..c24c53d 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c > > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c > > @@ -175,6 +175,10 @@ extern struct ctl_table inotify_table[]; > > int sysctl_legacy_va_layout; > > #endif > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RTLOCK_LATERAL_STEAL > > +extern int rtmutex_lateral_steal; > > +#endif > > + > > Try checkpatch. > Pavel I have that as part of quilt refresh, and it returns: Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. But Greg may need to enforce it on his git tree that he mails these from - are you referring to anything specific in this patch? Sven -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
