Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:31:35 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this >>needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to >>attack the cause of the problem. >> > >Footnote: I was thinking of using this to also _elevate_ the dynamic priority >of tasks waking from interruptible sleep as well which may help throughput. >
Con, an uninterruptible sleep is one which is not be woken by a signal, an interruptible sleep is one which is. There is no other connotation. What happens when read/write syscalls are changed to be interruptible? I'm not saying this will happen... but come to think of it, NFS probably has interruptible read/write.
In short: make the same policy for an interruptible and an uninterruptible sleep.
- 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/
| |