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
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
    >> Getting rid of these, or at least better delineating them, will move the
    >> BKL closer to being just a very granular lock.
    >> cond_resched_bkl() is a step toward that.

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:25:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > yes, I don't think it will make thing worse in respect of dropping the
    > bkl, if something it should help.
    > probably the bkl is still there because removing it won't bring much
    > further value to the kernel at runtime, it'd probably only make the
    > kernel a bit cleaner and simpler.

    I think the real trouble is that the locking being so hard to analyze,
    especially when it's intermixed with normal locking, causes real bugs.


    -- wli
    -
    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:2.409 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site