lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
    On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:44:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Yeah, I know. might_sleep() in cond_resched() makes sense.

    What I'm doing is basically to replace all might_sleep with cond_resched
    and then I add might_sleep in cond_resched. I also merged all
    new might_sleep in Ingo's patch (converted to cond_resched). We'll see
    what happens then when I try to boot such a thing (the sti and
    sched_yield already given me some troubles).

    I was considering adding a cond_resched_costly but I didn't see anything
    really that costly to need a CONFIG_LOW_RESCHED_OVERHEAD.

    btw, cond_resched should only be defined as might_sleep with PREEMPT
    enabled, otherwise it's pointless to check need_resched at almost every
    spin_unlock and to do it during cond_resched too. if might_sleep doesn't
    BUG it means we didn't need to check need_resched in the first place if
    preempt is enabled.

    cond_resched_lock is another story of course.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:4.260 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site