Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:50:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:50:56 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:65290 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:50:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:00:54 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Chris Friesen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fcntl and flock wakeups not FIFO? Message-ID: <20030218010054.J28902@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1064 Lines: 24 [cc'ing the person or list mentioned in MAINTAINERS would get you a better response :-P] > I've been doing some experimenting with locking on 2.4.18 and have > noticed that if I have a number of writers waiting on a lock, they are > not woken up in the order in which they requested the lock. > > Is this expected? If so, what was the reasoning for this and are there > any patches to give FIFO wakeups? That certainly isn't what's supposed to happen. They should get woken up in-order. The code in 2.4.18 seems to be doing that. Are you doing anything clever with scheduling? -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk - 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/