Re: flock(fd, LOCK_UN) taking 500ms+ ?

[John Levon <levon@movementarian.org>]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:30:52PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>  *  FL_FLOCK locks never deadlock, an existing lock is always removed before
>  *  upgrading from shared to exclusive (or vice versa). When this happens
>  *  any processes blocked by the current lock are woken up and allowed to
>  *  run before the new lock is applied.
>  *  Andy Walker (andy@lysaker.kvaerner.no), June 09, 1995
> 
> > If there really is a solid need to hand the CPU over to some now-runnable
> > higher-priority process then a cond_resched() will suffice.

How will cond_resched() work ?  Surely that will only give a chance if
the current process has reached the end of its timeslice (need_resched)
? Isn't "schedule()" the right thing here ?

> check needs_resched at syscall exit, so we don't need to do it for
> unlocks, right?

right ...

regards
john

-- 
"Me and my friends are so smart, we invented this new kind of art:
 Post-modernist throwing darts"
	- the Moldy Peaches