* Esben Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea of having the scheduler take care of it - it is a very
> optimal coded queue-system after all. That will work on UP but not on
> SMP. Having the unlock operation to set the mutex in a "partially
> owned" state will work better. The only problem I see, relative to
> Ingo's implementation, is that then the awoken task have to go in and
> change the state of the mutex, i.e. it has to lock the wait_lock
> again. Will the extra schedulings being the problem happen offen
> enough in practise to have the extra overhead?
i think this should be covered by the 'unschedule/unwakeup' feature,
mentioned in the latest mails.
Ingo
-
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/
