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:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> two things:
>
> 1) none of the big distros enables CONFIG_PREEMPT in their kernels - not
> even SuSE. This is pretty telling.
>
> 2) 10 new cond_resched()'s are not precisely 'sprinkle everywhere'.
>

No, but I mean putting them right down into fastpaths like the vmscan
one, for example.

And if I remember correctly, you resorted to putting them into
might_sleep as well (but I haven't read the code for a while, maybe
you're now getting decent results without doing that).
-
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:0.111 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site