lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Preempt? (was Re: Cannot enable DMA on SATA drive (SCSI-libsata, VIA SATA))
Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 21:55 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>
>>As opposed to fixing drivers??? Please fix the drivers and code first.
>
>
> No, definitely not, dude. Fixes for anything--drivers include--is never
> superseded by anything else, even the eternal quest for "low latency."
>
>
>>>sprinkling cond_resched() hacks all over the kernel.
>>
>>cond_resched() is not the only solution.
>
>
> Indeed. Most other solutions (fixing algorithms, lowering lock hold
> time) have "automatic" benefits with kernel preemption, though, and that
> has been what I have always advocated.
>

Well, but then without preempt, you *still* need to put cond_rescheds
in non-critical-section code. So cond_resched really does seem to be
the only solution (other than preempt).

I think this is why Ingo found he needed a check in might_sleep to get
really good latency (again, I could be wrong here as I haven't been
really following the progress of that work). But imagine when you
unwind *that* hack into the callers. Yuck.
-
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 14:06    [W:0.104 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site