Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:57:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:56:14 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:41227 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:54:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3C432969.3F98E538@linux-m68k.org> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:54:33 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com CC: Momchil Velikov , Daniel Phillips , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: <20020114064548.D22065@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20020114091801.A23139@hq.fsmlabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > > > is going to be an enormously important issue. However, once you add SCHED_FIFO in the > > > current scheme, this becomes more complex. And with preempt, you cannot even offer the > > > assurance that once a process gets the cpu it will make _any_ advance at all. > > > > I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but how is this related to > > preempt? > > It's pretty subtle. If there is no preempt, processes don't get preempted. > If there is preempt, they can be preempted. Amazing isn't it? I just can't win against such brilliant argumentation, I'm out. bye, Roman - 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/