lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectLow latency and fbcon [0.5 sec is not considered low latency] [Re: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48]
Hi!

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
>
> > > > Ok. Ingo: does your "low latency" patch violate this rule?
> > >
> > > yep, of course. It's a grave error to schedule during IRQ contexts, and we
> >
> > I think you mean: "of course not"!
>
> [ oops, correct :-) ]
>
> > > do have an assert in schedule() so it's plain impossible. The lowlatency
> > > patch simply works by increasing the effective frequency (occurance) of
> > > rescheduling (preemption) points [without actually rescheduling more
> > > often].
> >
> > This is too subtle for me. I don't know how you can make true
> > the first 2 things without having the third be false.
>
> well, the core of it is really simple:
>
> if (current->need_resched)
> schedule();
>
> current->need_resched is rarely set, mostly only if a process is getting
> preempted by a higher priority process. (which is the case we are
> interested in)

I tried doing something similar for fbcon, but could not. fbcon is by
far worst offender, and will happily block system for 500msec. if
(need_resched) schedule() does not work here. I tried adding
semaphores around fbcon entry points, but it does not seem to work.

(I replaced if (need_resched) schedule() with just schedule() -- I
hope that can not break anything...)
Pavel
--
The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.136 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site