lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
FromRobert Love <>
Date08 Jan 2002 16:45:41 -0500
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 16:24, Rik van Riel wrote:

> So what exactly _is_ the difference between an explicit
> preemption point and a place where we need to explicitly
> drop a spinlock ?

In that case nothing, except that when we drop the lock and check it is
the earliest place where preemption is allowed.  In the normal scenario,
however, we have a check for reschedule on return from interrupt (e.g.
the timer) and thus preempt in the same manner as with user space and
that is the key.

> > Future work would be to look into long-held locks and see what we can
> > do.
> 
> One thing we could do is download Andrew Morton's patch ;)

That is certainly one option, and Andrew's patch is very good. 
Nonetheless, I think we need a more general framework that tackles the
problem itself.  Preemptible kernel does this, yields results now, and
allows for greater return later on.

	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