Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272437AbTHEFM7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:12:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272438AbTHEFM7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:12:59 -0400 Received: from anumail5.anu.edu.au ([150.203.2.45]:24013 "EHLO anu.edu.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272437AbTHEFM5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3F2F3CC6.2060307@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:12:38 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Felipe Alfaro Solana Subject: Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity References: <200308050207.18096.kernel@kolivas.org> <200308051220.04779.kernel@kolivas.org> <3F2F149F.1020201@cyberone.com.au> <200308051318.47464.kernel@kolivas.org> <3F2F2517.7080507@cyberone.com.au> <1060059844.3f2f3ac46e2f2@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <1060059844.3f2f3ac46e2f2@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender-Domain: cyberone.com.au X-Spam-Score: (-2.8) X-Spam-Tests: DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1907 Lines: 56 Con Kolivas wrote: >Quoting Nick Piggin : > > >> >>Con Kolivas wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote: >>> >>> >>>>No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this >>>>needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to >>>>attack the cause of the problem. >>>> >>>> >>>Footnote: I was thinking of using this to also _elevate_ the dynamic >>> >>priority >> >>>of tasks waking from interruptible sleep as well which may help throughput. >>> >>> >>Con, an uninterruptible sleep is one which is not be woken by a signal, >>an interruptible sleep is one which is. There is no other connotation. >>What happens when read/write syscalls are changed to be interruptible? >>I'm not saying this will happen... but come to think of it, NFS probably >>has interruptible read/write. >> >>In short: make the same policy for an interruptible and an uninterruptible >>sleep. >> > >That's the policy that has always existed... > >Interesting that I have only seen the desired effect and haven't noticed any >side effect from this change so far. I'll keep experimenting as much as >possible (as if I wasn't going to) and see what the testers find as well. > Oh, I'm not saying that your change is outright wrong, on the contrary I'd say you have a better feel for what is needed than I do, but if you are finding that the uninterruptible sleep case needs some tweaking then the same tweak should be applied to all sleep cases. If there really is a difference, then its just a fluke that the sleep paths in question use the type of sleep you are testing for, and nothing more profound than that. - 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/