lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 24 May 2005 12:13:43 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Oh? I thought the idea of the voluntary-preempt thing was to stick
> cond_rescheds into might_sleep. At least that was the part I think I
> objected to... but I don't think I was one of the participants in that
> flamewar :)

the VP patchset consisted of dozens of latency-breakers, of the
->break_lock mechanism, of the might_sleep()s (which were placed based
on latency tracing tools) and on the cond_resched()s too, (and other
stuff i forget). Most of this is upstream now. To put a cond_resched()
into might_sleep() is now a 5-liner :-)

Ingo
-
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: 2005-05-24 12:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2010