|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Andrea Arcangeli <andrea-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel
|| ||Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:06:28 -0700|
|| ||paul-AT-linuxaudiosystems.com, rlrevell-AT-joe-job.com,
Andrea Arcangeli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> What I'm doing is basically to replace all might_sleep with cond_resched
I cannot see a lot of point in that. They are semantically different
things and should look different in the source.
And it's currently OK to add a might_sleep() to (say) an inline path which
is expended a zillion times because we know it'll go away for production
builds. If those things become cond_resched() calls instead, the code
increase will be permanent.
> cond_resched_lock is another story of course.
cond_resched_lock() doesn't work on SMP. I'll probably be removing it in
favour of unconditionally dropping the lock every N times around the loop,
to allow the other CPU (the one with need_resched() true) to get in there
and take it.
And please let me repeat: preemption is the way in which we wish to provide
low-latency. At this time, patches which sprinkle cond_resched() all over
the place are unwelcome. After 2.7 forks we can look at it again.
I've yet to go through Arjan's patch - I suspect a lot of it is not needed.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
to post comments)