Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:39:15 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: O(1) scheduler "complex" macros |
| |
Hi!
> > #define task_running(rq, p) \ > > ((rq)->curr == (p)) && !spin_is_locked(&(p)->switch_lock) > > one more implementational note: the above test is not 'sharp' in the sense > that on SMP it's only correct (the test has no barriers) if the runqueue > lock is held. This is true for all the critical task_running() uses in > sched.c - and the cases that use it outside the runqueue lock are > optimizations so they dont need an exact test.
I believe this is worth a *big fat* comment. Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |