* Re: [RFC 1/4] sched: Add CPU rate soft caps [not found] ` <20060604010841.2648.43027.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> @ 2006-06-04 2:27 ` Con Kolivas 2006-06-04 4:32 ` Peter Williams 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Con Kolivas @ 2006-06-04 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Williams Cc: Linux Kernel, Sam Vilain, Eric W.Biederman, Srivatsa, Balbir Singh, Kirill Korotaev, Mike Galbraith, Kingsley Cheung, CKRM, Ingo Molnar, Rene Herman On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote: > 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative > methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while > holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now > quite strict. However, there will still be occasions where caps may be > exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement. Transcription bug here: > int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock) > { > + int ret; > + > might_sleep(); > return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval > (&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath); should be ret = > + > + if (!ret) > + inc_mutex_count(); > + > + return ret; > } > compare with here: > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible); > @@ -366,8 +390,13 @@ static inline int __mutex_trylock_slowpa > */ > int fastcall __sched mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock) > { > - return __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count, > + int ret = __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count, > __mutex_trylock_slowpath); > + > + if (!ret) > + inc_mutex_count(); > + > + return ret; > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_trylock); -- -ck ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC 1/4] sched: Add CPU rate soft caps 2006-06-04 2:27 ` [RFC 1/4] sched: Add CPU rate soft caps Con Kolivas @ 2006-06-04 4:32 ` Peter Williams 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Peter Williams @ 2006-06-04 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Con Kolivas Cc: Linux Kernel, Sam Vilain, Eric W.Biederman, Srivatsa, Balbir Singh, Kirill Korotaev, Mike Galbraith, Kingsley Cheung, CKRM, Ingo Molnar, Rene Herman Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote: >> 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative >> methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while >> holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now >> quite strict. However, there will still be occasions where caps may be >> exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement. > > Transcription bug here: > >> int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock) >> { >> + int ret; >> + >> might_sleep(); >> return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval >> (&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath); > > should be ret = How embarrassing. I wonder why I didn't notice an "unreachable code" warning here? Thanks Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-06-04 4:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20060604010831.2648.37997.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest>
[not found] ` <20060604010841.2648.43027.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest>
2006-06-04 2:27 ` [RFC 1/4] sched: Add CPU rate soft caps Con Kolivas
2006-06-04 4:32 ` Peter Williams
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.