Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jun 2005 07:49:59 -0700 (PDT) | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, plist fixes |
| |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > > For me it's strictly a speed question. I was reviewing > > V0.7.40-04 and it looks like apples and oranges to me. It's more a > > question of where do you perfer the latency , in up() or in down() .. > > plist is slower for non-RT tasks, but non-RT tasks also get the > > benefit of priority ordering. > > what benefit do non-RT tasks get from plists, compared to the ordered > list? Non-RT tasks are not PI handled in any way.
The original wait list was partial ordered, wasn't it? RT tasks on the front, non-RT at the back. Now the whole list is sorted (including non RT tasks) . So non-RT task will get the lock in priority sorted order, as opposed to just random. Like you said, there is no PI done.
Daniel
- 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/
| |