Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:13:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:13:46 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:34312 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:13:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable From: Robert Love To: Rik van Riel Cc: Daniel Phillips , Andrew Morton , Anton Blanchard , Andrea Arcangeli , Luigi Genoni , Dieter N?tzel , Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Kernel List In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.18.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 08 Jan 2002 16:15:31 -0500 Message-Id: <1010524532.3383.106.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 16:08, Rik van Riel wrote: > The preemptible kernel ALSO has to wait for a scheduling point > to roll around, since it cannot preempt with spinlocks held. > > Considering this, I don't see much of an advantage to adding > kernel preemption. It only has to wait if locks are held and then only until the locks are dropped. Otherwise it will preempt on the next return from interrupt. Future work would be to look into long-held locks and see what we can do. Without preempt-kernel, we have none of this: either run until completion or explicit scheduling points. Robert Love - 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/