[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
    Quoting Nick Piggin <>:

    > 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.

    That's the policy that has always existed...

    Interesting that I have only seen the desired effect and haven't noticed any
    side effect from this change so far. I'll keep experimenting as much as
    possible (as if I wasn't going to) and see what the testers find as well.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.021 / U:22.860 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site