[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 10:18, Roman Zippel wrote:

> What somehow got lost in this discussion, that both patches don't
> necessarily conflict with each other, they both attack the same problem
> with different approaches, which complement each other. I prefer to get
> the best of both patches.
> The ll patch identifies problem, which preempt alone can't fix, on the
> other hand the ll patch inserts schedule calls all over the place, where
> preempt can handle this transparently. So far I haven't seen any
> evidence, that preempt introduces any _new_ serious problems, so I'd
> rather like to see to get the best out of both.

Good point. In fact, I have an "ll patch" for preempt-kernel, it is
called lock-break and available at

While I am not so sure this sort of explicit work is the answer -- I'd
much prefer to work on the algorithms to shorten lock time or lock into
different locks -- it does work. The work is based heavily on Andrew's
ll patch but designed for use with preempt-kernel. This means we can
drop some of the conditional schedules that aren't needed, and in others
we don't need to call schedule (just drop the locks).

Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.207 / U:6.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site