At 08:30 PM 1/7/2006 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 07 January 2006 16:27, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Personally, I think that all TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleeps should be
> > treated as non interactive rather than just be heavily discounted (and
> > that TASK_NONINTERACTIVE shouldn't be needed in conjunction with it) BUT
> > I may be wrong especially w.r.t. media streamers such as audio and video
> > players and the mechanisms they use to do sleeps between cpu bursts.
>
> Try it, you won't like it. When I first examined sleep_avg woes, my
> reaction was to nuke uninterruptible sleep too... boy did that ever _suck_
> :)
Glad you've seen why I put the uninterruptible sleep logic in there.
Yeah, if there's one thing worse than too much preemption, it's too little
preemption.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
