![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 10:18, 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. > The ll patch identifies problem, which preempt alone can't fix, on the > other hand the ll patch inserts schedule calls all over the place, where > preempt can handle this transparently. So far I haven't seen any > evidence, that preempt introduces any _new_ serious problems, so I'd > rather like to see to get the best out of both. Good point. In fact, I have an "ll patch" for preempt-kernel, it is called lock-break and available at ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/lock-break While I am not so sure this sort of explicit work is the answer -- I'd much prefer to work on the algorithms to shorten lock time or lock into different locks -- it does work. The work is based heavily on Andrew's ll patch but designed for use with preempt-kernel. This means we can drop some of the conditional schedules that aren't needed, and in others we don't need to call schedule (just drop the locks). Robert Love - 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 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||