Re: runqueue locks in schedule()

From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: 2008-01-18 19:28:42
On Friday 18 January 2008 17:33, stephane eranian wrote:
> Nick,

> > It is arch specific. If an architecture wants interrupts on during
> > context switch, or runqueue unlocked, then they set it (btw
> Yes , I noticed that. I am only interested in UNLOCKED_CTXSW.
> But it appears that the approach suggested my Peter does work. We are
> running some tests.

OK, that might be OK.

> > Although, eg on x86, you would hold off interrupts and runqueue lock for
> > slightly less time if you defined those, it results in _slightly_ more
> > complicated context switching... although I did once find a workload
> > where the reduced runqueue contention improved throughput a bit, it is
> > not much problem in general to hold the lock.
> By complicated you mean that now you'd have to make sure you don't
> need to access runqueue data?

Well, not speaking about the arch-specific code (which may involve
more complexities), but the core scheduler needs the
task_struct->oncpu variable wheras that isn't required if the
runqueue is locked while switching tasks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Jan 18 19:29:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2008-01-18 19:29:29 EST