![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | ||||||||||