[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
Con Kolivas wrote:

>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
>>>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
>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.

Oh, I'm not saying that your change is outright wrong, on the contrary I'd
say you have a better feel for what is needed than I do, but if you are
that the uninterruptible sleep case needs some tweaking then the same tweak
should be applied to all sleep cases. If there really is a difference,
then its
just a fluke that the sleep paths in question use the type of sleep you are
testing for, and nothing more profound than that.

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:0.097 / U:7.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site