| To: | Luben Tuikov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:06:58 +0100 |
| Cc: | Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3DB5AD3F.80402@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; from luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:55:43PM -0400 |
| References: | <3DB49424.9E4CAC0F@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1035289272.9684.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3DB5AD3F.80402@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:55:43PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > This is what wake_up_sync() does. wake_up() may reschedule > on an SMP system, since the other CPUs may be able to get > another task to run. This is why there are two different > implementations wake_up() and wake_up_sync(). > > If you have 4 CPUs, 3 idle and call wake_up() why should > the 3 idle CPUs _STAY_ idle, _until_ you (later) call schedule() > and _then_ to schedule another task on the idle CPUs, and > you to continue to go on, say if you were a SCHED_FIFO, or > SCHED_OTHER... > > BTW, that the _whole_ point of SMP -- _symmetric_ MP. Could you please give me some of thev crack you're smoking? I'd suggest you take an actual look at the implementation of wake_up/wake_up_sync. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RH 8.0 installer, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH: sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PATCH: sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c, Luben Tuikov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: PATCH: sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c, Luben Tuikov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |