Re: status of Preemptible Kernel 2.6.7

[Robert Love]

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:

> I wasn't talking about locks.  I was talking about kernel functions 
> taking long periods of time, cases where preempt has been useful to 
> reduce kernel latency.
>
> Holding locks for extended periods is something else entirely.

I know what you were talking about.  I was replying that it seems better
overall to me if we work to eliminate long lock hold times (which then
eliminates long non-preemption times) than litter the kernel with
explicit rescheduling statements.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/