Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266683AbUINSzL (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:55:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269199AbUINSxV (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:53:21 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:45461 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269387AbUINSwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:52:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:12 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Robert Love Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Nick Piggin , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels Message-ID: <20040914185212.GY9106@holomorphy.com> References: <20040914110611.GA32077@elte.hu> <20040914112847.GA2804@elte.hu> <20040914114228.GD2804@elte.hu> <4146EA3E.4010804@yahoo.com.au> <20040914132225.GA9310@elte.hu> <4146F33C.9030504@yahoo.com.au> <20040914140905.GM4180@dualathlon.random> <41470021.1030205@yahoo.com.au> <20040914150316.GN4180@dualathlon.random> <1095185103.23385.1.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1095185103.23385.1.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1384 Lines: 29 On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 17:03 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> we simply need a cond_resched_bkl() for that, no? Very few places are >> still serialized with the BKL, so I don't think it would be a big issue >> to convert those few places to use cond_resched_bkl. On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:05:03PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: > Yes, this is all we need to do. > cond_resched() goes away under PREEMPT. > cond_resched_bkl() does not. > I did this a looong time ago, but did not get much interest. > Explicitly marking places that use BKL's "I can always call schedule()" > assumption help make it easier to phase out that assumption, too. Or at > least better mark it. I'd vaguely prefer to clean up the BKL (ab)users... of course, this involves working with some of the dirtiest code in the kernel that's already discouraged most/all of those who work on reducing/eliminating BKL use from touching it... maybe the latency trend is the final nail in the coffin of resistance to cleaning that up, though I agree with Alan that we have to be very careful about it, particularly since all prior attempts failed to be sufficiently so. -- wli - 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/