Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

[Nick Piggin]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 02 June 2006 12:28, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> > Actually looking even further, we only introduced the extra lookup of the
> > next task when we started unlocking the runqueue in schedule(). Since we
> > can get by without locking this_rq in schedule with this approach we can
> > simplify dependent_sleeper even further by doing the dependent sleeper
> > check after we have discovered what next is in schedule and avoid looking
> > it up twice. I'll hack something up to do that soon.
>
>
> Something like this (sorry I couldn't help but keep hacking on it).

Looking pretty good. Nice to acknowledge Chris's idea for
trylocks in your changelog when you submit a final patch.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/