Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:32:35 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Assorted counter/sched stuff |
| |
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Neil Conway wrote:
> (I didn't get this done before pre9 so I waited till now!)
Which is a good thing since we want the pre-patches to be tested in their original version by as many people as possible...
> This is a collection of two types of fix: (a) drivers doing > "current->counter =0;schedule()" with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE set; (b) > lots of architectures doing "if (current->counter <0)" when they > should really have tested for "<= 0".
The < --> <= change should not cost anything on most architectures and reduces the pressure a nice +19 task puts on the system. It should go in immediately.
The current->counter = 0; trick is not needed anymore. We've had SCHED_YIELD for ages and we're doing a timeout anyway... Another candidate for inclusion.
> There are still loads of places (mostly in the fs code) where we > do "current->counter =0;schedule()", but I don't know of any > better way to do the waits in those cases. Perhaps they are > conceptually optimal anyway.
Probably not. Artificially setting current->counter to 0 is very unfair and can be bad for the system's interactive feel. We should use SCHED_YIELD in this case.
Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. riel@nl.linux.org | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.nl.linux.org/~riel | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |