> On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> > Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> writes:
> >
> > > On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This thread is all about fixing theses latency problem, however,
> > > > understand that the patch you are talking about aren't the right
> > > > way to do.
> > >
> > > So we should not add any functionality that isn't optimally implimented?
> > > Gee, I think that eliminates about 98% of the kernel, and for that matter just
> > > about every OS in existance.
> > >
> >
> > It is implemented the *wrong way* and could cause *big*
> > problem on the long term...
>
> Didn't Linus' comments yesterday contradict that statement. As I read them
> he agreed that the copy_to_user and copy_from_user functions should be
> fixed and selective (fully explained) pre-emption points added.
yes.
> So the
> implmentation was right but the problem was the massive sprinkling of
> unexplained preemption points was the problem.
No, the implementation isn't right...
to quote what Linus said :
<quote>
For example, let's say that something uses an O(n^3) algorithm, and
to "overcome" the expense of this thing we add scheduling points in it.
That's the easy way to do it. But maybe the right thing to do is to
realize that the code may be badly structured in the first place?
</quote>
The low latency patch only add scheduling point all over the place.
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/