* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
