[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8482.1272446987@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:29:47 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>,
Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: implement the exclusive wait queue as a LIFO queue
Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> wrote:
> If there isn't enough work to be done, we'd better not disrupt them
> and leave them sleeping forever to keep the scheduler happier. Do we
> have reason to keep fair to all the workers? Does it have benefit?
You've made one important assumption: the processes on the wait queue are
sleeping waiting to service things... but what if the wait queue governs
access to a resource, and all the processes on that wait queue need access to
that resource to do things? Some of the processes waiting for it may never
get a go, and so necessary work may be left undone.
So NACK.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists