Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jul 2004 02:45:18 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > For all the > other 200 might_sleep() points it doesnt matter much.
Sorry, but an additional 100 might_sleep()s is surely excessive for debugging purposes, and unneeded for latency purposes: all these sites are preemptible anyway.
Let me repeat that I am unconvinced as to the diagnosis of the current audio problems - more analysis might prove me wrong of course.
And I'm unconvinced that we need to do anything apart from identifying and fixing the remaining spinlocks which are holding off preemption for too long.
IOW, I am questioning the very need for a "voluntary preemption" feature at all when "involuntary preemption" works perfectly well.
- 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/
| |