* Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
===================================================================
--- MM-2.6.17-mm6.orig/kernel/mutex.c 2006-07-04 14:37:43.000000000 +1000
+++ MM-2.6.17-mm6/kernel/mutex.c 2006-07-04 14:38:12.000000000 +1000
@@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const c
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
+static inline void inc_mutex_count(void)
+{
+ current->mutexes_held++;
+}
+
+static inline void dec_mutex_count(void)
+{
+ current->mutexes_held--;
+}
+
NACK! This whole patch is way too intrusive for such a relatively small gain.
also, if something doesnt hold a mutex, it might still be unsafe to background it! For example if it holds a semaphore. Or an rwsem. Or any other kernel resource that has exclusion semantics.
so unless this patch gets _much_ less complex and much less intrusive, we'll have to stay with SCHED_BATCH and nice +19.