Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261668AbVB1Saj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:30:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261682AbVB1Saj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:30:39 -0500 Received: from calma.pair.com ([209.68.1.95]:37134 "HELO calma.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261668AbVB1Sag (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:30:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:30:36 -0500 From: "Chad N. Tindel" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Scheduler question in __wake_up_common() - Real Time Apps Message-ID: <20050228183036.GA22914@calma.pair.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 780 Lines: 17 I have a question about the implementation in __wake_up_common() that I'm hoping someone might know the background on. This function wakes up a specified number of tasks for a wait_queue. I'm wondering why it doesn't wake up the tasks in priority order, so that for things following wake-one semantics high priority tasks get woken up before lower priority tasks. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it simplifies the O(1) implementation, but I'm wondering if maybe there is something else. Thanks, Chad - 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/