Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:04 +1000 | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity |
| |
Quoting Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>:
> > > 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.
Con - 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/
| |