On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, William Montgomery wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, William Montgomery wrote:
> >
> > >Any ideas?
> >
> > I had a fast look at the buffer.c part of lowlatency-2.2.14-B1 patch and
> > the bh->b_count++; schedule(); bh->b_count-- added in buffer.c are buggy.
> > Also the schedules in brelse/bforget are buggy since such functions are
> > never been supposed to block.
> >
> OK, I commented out the bh->b_count++; schedule(); bh->b_count-- in
> buffer.c and got the expected result; stuck process problem goes away
> and latency increases to 12msec.
>
> Apparently the schedule() is needed, what is the safe way to do it?
> What is the scenario which results in the stuck process?
>
> Wm
Has someone out here figured out why 2.2.10N6B does not crash,
since it contains the same
bh->b_count++; schedule(); bh->b_count--
in the buffer.c part of the patch ?
But anyway, again we see that the disk I/O + buffering are the most expensive
in terms of execution path len.
Benno.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:30 EST