Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ...

# Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ...

Davide Libenzi (dlibenzi@maticad.it)
Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:42:27 +0200 (CEST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Horst von Brand: "Re: 2.3.6 (mmap fails)"
- Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: Question: Porting a Driver to 2.2"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ..."
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ..."

Hi andrea,

>You _can't_ use it with your wake_up_sem(). I just thought about that. But
>I think it would be better to do a real FIFO instead of your goodness
>approch. We should have a way to choose which kind of wakeup to do on
>waitqueues. And now that waitqueues are double linked list choosing
>between FIFO and LIFO should be trivial

I must to point You to the fact that releasing all tasks as was done
previously is the same issue I do without the extra cost of wakeups
and schedules.
I think that the goodness implementation solves the mm and smp precendences
as long as the way to exit for every task queued.
This is my opinion, if I'm crazy let me know.

Cheers,
Davide.

-
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/

- Next message: Horst von Brand: "Re: 2.3.6 (mmap fails)"
- Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: Question: Porting a Driver to 2.2"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ..."
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ..."