Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266619AbUFWTLR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:11:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266618AbUFWTLR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:11:17 -0400 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:16146 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266613AbUFWTLP (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:11:15 -0400 Message-ID: <40D9DA4A.3070700@techsource.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:30:18 -0400 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Love CC: Marcus Hartig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: status of Preemptible Kernel 2.6.7 References: <40D9B20A.4070409@web.de> <40D9C48C.4060004@techsource.com> <1088017171.14159.2.camel@betsy> In-Reply-To: <1088017171.14159.2.camel@betsy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1567 Lines: 42 Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 13:57 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote: > > >>I vaguely recall someone recently talking about eliminating preempt by >>improving low-latency. See, if everything were ideal, we wouldn't need >>preempt, because all drivers would yield the CPU at appropriate times. > > > If everything held locks for only sane periods of time, we would not > need gross explicit yielding all over the place. > > To answer Marcus's question: go for it and use it. I wasn't talking about locks. I was talking about kernel functions taking long periods of time, cases where preempt has been useful to reduce kernel latency. Holding locks for extended periods is something else entirely. I presume there are sane cases where a kernel function will need to execute for a "long time", like when doing PIO disk access or COW, etc. It would be good to have a way to limit the impact of those functions in terms of user-perceived latency, just as preempt has done, but without preempt. At least, I thought that was the idea. Now, the thing is, if you have explicit cooperative yields, then a slow CPU might not yield often enough, and a fast CPU would yield too often. Preempt has the advantage of using real time so that CPUs can maximize throughput without affecting latency. - 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/