On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> Well. I can't say I really like this. 4/5 itself looks fine, but other
> complications do not look nice, at least in the long term. Imho, imho,
> I can be wrong.
>
> Everyone seem to agree that tasklist should die, this series
Hi Michel,
Well. I can't say I really like this. 4/5 itself looks fine, but other
complications do not look nice, at least in the long term. Imho, imho,
I can be wrong.
Everyone seem to agree that tasklist should die, this series doesn't
even try to solve the fundamental problems with this
Hi Michel,
Well. I can't say I really like this. 4/5 itself looks fine, but other
complications do not look nice, at least in the long term. Imho, imho,
I can be wrong.
Everyone seem to agree that tasklist should die, this series doesn't
even try to solve the fundamental problems with this
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Michel,
Well. I can't say I really like this. 4/5 itself looks fine, but other
complications do not look nice, at least in the long term. Imho, imho,
I can be wrong.
Everyone seem to agree that tasklist should die,
I'd like to gather comments on these patches, which apply over v3.9-rc1.
I have been looking at rwlock_t fairness issues, and in particular at
tasklist_lock as this is the one rwlock_t user that seems to be making
it difficult to switch rwlock_t to a fair lock. This is because the
tasklist_lock
I'd like to gather comments on these patches, which apply over v3.9-rc1.
I have been looking at rwlock_t fairness issues, and in particular at
tasklist_lock as this is the one rwlock_t user that seems to be making
it difficult to switch rwlock_t to a fair lock. This is because the
tasklist_lock
6 matches
Mail list logo
