[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
Quoting Nick Piggin <>:

> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this
> >>needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to
> >>attack the cause of the problem.
> >>
> >
> >Footnote: I was thinking of using this to also _elevate_ the dynamic
> priority
> >of tasks waking from interruptible sleep as well which may help throughput.
> >
> Con, an uninterruptible sleep is one which is not be woken by a signal,
> an interruptible sleep is one which is. There is no other connotation.
> What happens when read/write syscalls are changed to be interruptible?
> I'm not saying this will happen... but come to think of it, NFS probably
> has interruptible read/write.
> In short: make the same policy for an interruptible and an uninterruptible
> sleep.

That's the policy that has always existed...

Interesting that I have only seen the desired effect and haven't noticed any
side effect from this change so far. I'll keep experimenting as much as
possible (as if I wasn't going to) and see what the testers find as well.

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 13:47    [W:0.075 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site