Lee Revell wrote:
On 5/8/07, Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> wrote:
I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt
models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know
what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under
normal loads. Define normal as servers and desktops.
This was introduced by Ingo to solve a real problem that I found,
where some codepath would hold the BKL for long enough to introduce
excessive scheduling latencies - search list archive for details. But
I don't remember the code path (scrolling the FB console? VT
switching? reiser3? misc. ioctl()s?). Basically, taking the BKL
disabled preemption which caused long latencies.
It's certainly possible that whatever issue led to this was solved in
another way since.
Anything is possible. I feel that using voluntary + bkl is probably good
for most servers, forced preempt for desktop, although it really doesn't
seem to do much beyond voluntary.
Thanks for the clarification.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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]
