Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/