lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1
From
Date

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 21:31 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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?)

I've seen 1s+ desktop latencies due to PREEMPT_BKL when I was still
using reiserfs.

Both reiserfs and tty were fighting for the bkl and massive prio
inversion ensued. Turning PREEMPT_BKL off made the system usable again.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-02 12:05    [W:0.050 / U:7.672 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site