Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P1 | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:48:52 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |