Rik van Riel 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... Just raise the priority whenever the task's in kernel mode. Problem solved. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Boris Dragovic
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Boris Dragovic
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? george anzinger
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Adrian Cox
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Jamie Lokier
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Adrian Cox
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Jamie Lokier
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Jamie Lokier
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Jamie Lokier
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Jamie Lokier
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Rik van Riel
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Philipp Rumpf
- Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? Pavel Machek