lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
From
Date
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

Oliver> You can have an rt task block on a lock held by a normal task that was
Oliver> preempted by a rt task of lower priority. The same problem as with the
Oliver> sched_idle patches.
>>
>> This can happen with a non-preemptible kernel too. And it has nothing to
>> do with scheduling policy.

Alan> So why bother adding pre-emption. As you keep saying - it doesnt
Alan> gain anything

Nope. I don't. I said (at least in the above) it didn't hurt.

One can consider a non-preemptible kernel as a special kind of
priority inversion, preemptible kernel will eliminate _that_ case of
priority inversion.

Regards,
-velco

-
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 13:15    [W:0.340 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site