Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:40 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:59664 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable From: Robert Love To: Kenneth Johansson Cc: Alan Cox , arjan@fenrus.demon.nl, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3C409E3C.A4968CE@canit.se> In-Reply-To: <3C409E3C.A4968CE@canit.se> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.18.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 12 Jan 2002 18:01:10 -0500 Message-Id: <1010876470.3560.0.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 15:36, Kenneth Johansson wrote: > > I must have missed that in the code. I can see you check __cli() status but > > I didn't see anywhere you check disable_irq(). Even if you did it doesnt > > help when I mask the irq on the chip rather than using disable_irq() calls. > > > > Alan > > But you get interrupted by other interrups then so you have the same problem > reagardless of any preemtion patch you hopefully lose the cpu for a much > shorter time but still the same problem. Agreed. Further, you can't put _any_ upper bound on the number of interrupts that could occur, preempt or not. Sure, preempt can make it worse, but I don't see it. I have no bug reports to correlate. 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/