Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:19:04 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Without preemption task C would not have been preempted and it would > have released the lock much sooner, meaning task A could have gotten > the resource earlier.
Define "much sooner", nobody disputes that low priority tasks can be delayed, that's actually the purpose of both patches.
> Using the low latency patch we'd insert some smart code into the > algorithm so task A also releases the lock before rescheduling.
Could you please show me that "smart code"?
> Before you say this thing never happens in practice, I ran into > this thing in real life with the SCHED_IDLE patch. In fact, this > problem was so severe it convinced me to abandon SCHED_IDLE ;))
SCHED_IDLE is something completely different than preeempt. Rik, do I really have to explain the difference?
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |