From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range In-Reply-To: <1027360686.932.33.camel@sinai> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robert Love Cc: Andrew Morton , riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/