lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1
Date
On Monday 31 December 2007 00:10, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > Ingo, it's not good that we have cond_resched() definitions
> > > conditionally duplicated in kernel.h - that's increasing the risk of
> > > bugs like this one.
> >
> > Actually, why do we even have cond_resched when real preemption is on?
> > It seems to be a waste of space and time.
>
> due to the BKL. cond_resched() in BKL code breaks up BKL latencies.
>
> i dont mind not doing that though - we should increase the pain for BKL
> users, so that subsystems finally get rid of it altogether.
> lock_kernel() use within the kernel is still rampant - there are still
> more than 400 callsites to lock_kernel().

It would be silly to potentially increase latency in some areas
for CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, though.

Better may be to detect when there is CONFIG_PREEMPT and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL, and ifdef away the cond_resched in that case
(or -- why do we even make CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL an option? Are there
really workloads left where it causes throughput regressions?)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-02 11:33    [W:0.116 / U:1.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site