![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On January 13, 2002 04:36 pm, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 04:18:29PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > What somehow got lost in this discussion, that both patches don't > > necessarily conflict with each other, they both attack the same problem > > with different approaches, which complement each other. I prefer to get > > the best of both patches. > > If you do this (and I've seen the results of doing both at once vs only > either of then vs pure) then there's NO benifit for the preemption left. Sorry, that's incorrect. I stated why earlier in this thread and akpm signed off on it. With preempt you get ASAP (i.e., as soon as the outermost spinlock is done) process scheduling. With hand-coded scheduling points you get 'as soon as it happens to hit a scheduling point'. That is not the only benefit, just the most obvious one. -- Daniel - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [W:0.971 / U:0.360 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||