lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?
From
Date
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 18:20 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

> This and other cases
> (lots of per_cpu users, IIRC) actually want a migrate_disable() which
> is a proper subset.

The disadvantage of migrate_disable() is that it complicates the
load-balancer but more importantly, that it does bring a form of
latencies with it that are hard to measure. Using preempt_disable() for
these current per-cpu users basically forces them to keep it short.

Which is a GOOD (tm) thing.

If we go overboard with this migrate_disable() stuff we can end up with
a very hard to analyse system that sporadically does weird stuff.

So, please, don't start that again.

Also see:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/23/338

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-08 10:15    [W:0.117 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site