lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Could these ones go up a level? We break down scanning into 32 page
>>chunks, so I don't think it needs to be checked every page.
>
>
> not really - we can occasionally get into high latencies even with a
> single page - if a single page is mapped by alot of processes.
>

So doing it in the loop doesn't really give you a deterministic
maximum latency if somebody is out to cause trouble, does it?

OTOH, I guess libc or some shared memory segment may be mapped
into a lot of processes even on RT applictions.

Another thing, I don't mean this to sound like a rhetorical question,
but if we have a preemptible kernel, why is it a good idea to sprinkle
cond_rescheds everywhere? Isn't this now the worst of both worlds?
Why would someone who really cares about latency not enable preempt?
-
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:0.376 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site