> > > I completely agree on this one. We should probably mark a process
> > > with "bonus" if another process tries to grab a lock that's held
> > > by the first process.
> >
> > "Priority inheritance." It adds complexity to _every_ place where the
> > kernel blocks. Remember, we don't always use locks. The page cache
> > has a single PG_Locked flag on the page, plus a per-page wait queue.
>
> OK. Then we probably shouldn't do this at all. SCHED_IDLE is of
> limited value and the chance of the system actually locking up
> is minute in non-hostile environments.
>
> Just let the common path be cheap and have the sysadmin decide
> if he wants to take the risk of a minor lockup or not...
Please don't do that. sct's solution with schedule() from kernel doing
promotion looks ok to me. It may do some slowdown, but it is at least
correct. I'll always prefer correctness over speed.
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/