Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:34:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:34:26 -0500 Received: from [217.9.226.246] ([217.9.226.246]:5760 "HELO merlin.xternal.fadata.bg") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:34:04 -0500 To: Alan Cox Cc: Oliver.Neukum@lrz.uni-muenchen.de, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, phillips@bonn-fries.net (Daniel Phillips), arjan@fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven), zippel@linux-m68k.org (Roman Zippel), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: From: Momchil Velikov In-Reply-To: Date: 15 Jan 2002 00:34:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87sn98ftpi.fsf@fadata.bg> Lines: 21 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Cox writes: Oliver> You can have an rt task block on a lock held by a normal task that was Oliver> preempted by a rt task of lower priority. The same problem as with the Oliver> sched_idle patches. >> >> This can happen with a non-preemptible kernel too. And it has nothing to >> do with scheduling policy. Alan> So why bother adding pre-emption. As you keep saying - it doesnt Alan> gain anything Nope. I don't. I said (at least in the above) it didn't hurt. One can consider a non-preemptible kernel as a special kind of priority inversion, preemptible kernel will eliminate _that_ case of priority inversion. Regards, -velco - 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/