Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:12:38 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote:
>Quoting Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>: > > >> >>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. >
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 finding 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 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/
| |