Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:42 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 |
| |
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Oh, well. I didn't actually even verify that UNIX domain sockets will > > cause synchronous wakeups, so the patch may literally be doing nothing > > at all. You can try that theory out by just removing the test for > > "in_interrupt()". > > you are not referring to the 'synchronous wakeups' as used by fs/pipe.c, > right?
No, sorry. Bad choice of words.
The traditional "synchronous wakeups" as used by fs/pipe.c is a hint to the scheduler that the waker will go to sleep.
And no, that's not the hint I'm using at all. I'm only interested in "process-synchronous", since if the wakeup isn't process-synchronous then "current" doesn't make much sense to me.
> so i think your current patch should cover unix domain sockets just as > well, they certain dont use IRQ-context wakeups.
Note that "in_interrupt()" will also trigger for callers that call from bh-atomic regions as well as actual BH handlers. Which is correct - they are both "interrupt contexts" as far as most users should be concerned.
The unix domain case may well be bh-atomic, I haven't looked at the code. I'm pretty much certain that the TCP case _will_ be BH-atomic, even for loopback.
David?
Linus
- 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/
| |