Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, I forgot: Ingo once introduced some code to bail early (though for
different reasons and under different conditions), and this actually
was found to cause significant regressions in some database workloads.
well, we both did changes with that effect - pretty much any change in
this area can cause a regression on _some_ workload ;) So there wont be
any silver bullet.
Well yes. Although specifically the bail-out-early stuff which IIRC
you did... I wasn't singling you out in particular, I've broken the
scheduler at _least_ as much as you have since starting work on it ;)
So it is not a nice thing to tinker with unless there is good reason.
unbound latencies with hardirqs off are obviously a good reason - but i
agree that the solution is not good enough, yet.
Ah, so this is an RT tree thing where the scheduler lock turns off "hard
irqs"? As opposed to something like the rwsem lock that only turns off
your "soft irqs" (sorry, I'm not with the terminlogy)?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
