lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P1
From
Date
On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 01:02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah. If it's the first chunk then we could perhaps avoid it by doing it
> outside of the lock.
>

Hmm, this is odd:

preemption latency trace v1.0
-----------------------------
latency: 71 us, entries: 6 (6)
process: XFree86/518, uid: 0
nice: -10, policy: 0, rt_priority: 0
=======>
0.000ms (+0.000ms): sched_clock (schedule)
0.000ms (+0.000ms): deactivate_task (schedule)
0.000ms (+0.000ms): dequeue_task (deactivate_task)
0.001ms (+0.000ms): __switch_to (schedule)
0.068ms (+0.066ms): finish_task_switch (schedule)
0.069ms (+0.000ms): check_preempt_timing (sub_preempt_count)

Lee

-
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 14:05    [W:0.405 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site