On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:06 +0200, Raistlin wrote: > > Anyway, maybe if, on some architecture, for some kind of application, > > the affinity may have been set to preserve some kind actual cache or > > memory locality for the task access pattern, maybe this could be an > > issue, couldn't it? :-) > > I mean, in some case where being sure of having a task running on a > > particular CPU is somehow of paramount importance... > > Right, and you answered your own question :-), its _running_ that is > important, so as long as its blocked (not running), you're free to place > the task on another cpu if that helps out with something. > Yep! Re-reading both your and my comments I saw I misunderstood your point! :-( I agree thet you have to move some task and, moving the "blocked" ones, would allow the lock-owner to continue running in its place, which sounds good to me to. :-) Sorry! Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@xxxxxxxxx / dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
