Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Thu Mar 08 2001 - 15:47:25 EST

Next message: Paul Larson: "Re: Kernel stress testing coverage"
Previous message: Admin Mailing Lists: "NMI messages - 2.4.1-ac13"
In reply to: Boris Dragovic: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Next in thread: george anzinger: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Reply: george anzinger: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:

> > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
> > is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
>
> couldn't it just be indicated on actual locking the resource?

It could, but I doubt we would want this overhead on the locking...

Rik

-- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- 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/

Next message: Paul Larson: "Re: Kernel stress testing coverage"
Previous message: Admin Mailing Lists: "NMI messages - 2.4.1-ac13"
In reply to: Boris Dragovic: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Next in thread: george anzinger: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Reply: george anzinger: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:09 EST