Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range

Linus Torvalds
2002-07-22T18:01:37Z

On 22 Jul 2002, Robert Love wrote:
>
> Sure. What do you think of this?

How about adding an "cond_resched_lock()" primitive?

You can do it better as a primitive than as the written-out thing (the
spin_unlock() doesn't need to conditionally test the scheduling point
again, it can just unconditionally call schedule())

And there might be other places that want to drop a lock before scheduling
anyway.

Linus