Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 13:05:10 EST


On 22 Jul 2002, Robert Love wrote:
>
> Sure. What do you think of this?

How about adding an "cond_resched_lock()" primitive?

You can do it better as a primitive than as the written-out thing (the
spin_unlock() doesn't need to conditionally test the scheduling point
again, it can just unconditionally call schedule())

And there might be other places that want to drop a lock before scheduling
anyway.

                Linus

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST