![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 19:29, John Alvord wrote: > The best part about planned preemption points is that there is minimal > state to save when an interruption occurs. Actually, both preempt-kernel and low-latency do about the same amount of work re saving state. With preempt-kernel, when a task is preempted in-kernel we AND a flag value into the preempt count. That is all we need to keep track of things. With low-latency, the task state is set to TASK_RUNNING (which is a precautionary measure). So it is about the same, although low-latency (and lock-break) often also have to do various setup with the locks and all. 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 | ||||||||||