[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
    On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 09:17:58AM -0700, wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:50:31AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    > > There's a vague notion in my head that it should decrease scheduling
    > Vague notions seems to be the level of data on this topic.

    Ok, replace "vague notion" with latency and scheduling concepts that
    everybody else except you understands and you'll be a bit more relevant.

    It's not even about IO system, it's about a consumer-producer relationships
    between threads and some kind of IPC generic mechanism. You'd run into
    the same problems by having two threads communicating in a priorty capable
    scheduler, since the temporal granualarity of "things that the scheduler
    manages" gets clobbered but inheritently brain damaged locking.

    Say, how would the scheduler properly order the priority relationships for
    non-preemptable thread that holds that critical section for 100ms under
    an extreme (or normal) case ?

    The effectiveness of the scheduler in these cases would be meaningless.
    Shit, just replace that SOB with a stocastic-insert-round-robin system and
    it'll be just as effective if this current state of Linux locking stays
    in place. There's probably more truth than exaggeration from what I've
    seen both in the code and running Linux as a desktop OS.

    > Victor Yodaiken


    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 13:33    [W:0.026 / U:3.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site