Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:24:04 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
On 8 Jan 2002, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 16:08, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > The preemptible kernel ALSO has to wait for a scheduling point > > to roll around, since it cannot preempt with spinlocks held. > > > > Considering this, I don't see much of an advantage to adding > > kernel preemption. > > It only has to wait if locks are held and then only until the locks are > dropped. Otherwise it will preempt on the next return from interrupt.
So what exactly _is_ the difference between an explicit preemption point and a place where we need to explicitly drop a spinlock ?
>From what I can see, there really isn't a difference.
> Future work would be to look into long-held locks and see what we can > do.
One thing we could do is download Andrew Morton's patch ;)
Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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/
|  |