On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Seems like you are sneaking up on priority inherit mutexes.
> The locking over head is not so bad (same as spinlock, except in
> UP case, where it is the same as the SMP case). The unlock is,
> however, the same as the lock overhead. It is hard to beat the
> store of zero which is the spin_unlock.
Hmmm, what would this look like ?
(we need the same code if we want to do decent load
control for the VM, where we suspend tasks when the
load gets too high)
Rik
-- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtmlVirtual 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:10 EST