[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [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 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 ;)

"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

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 13:18    [W:0.219 / U:1.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site