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/