Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch

[Christoph Hellwig]

> unlike the lowlatency patches, this patch doesn't add a lot of new
> scheduling points to the source code, it rather reuses a rich but
> currently inactive set of scheduling points that already exist in the
> 2.6 tree: the might_sleep() debugging checks. Any code point that does
> might_sleep() is in fact ready to sleep at that point. So the patch
> activates these debugging checks to be scheduling points. This reduces
> complexity and impact quite significantly.

I don't think this is a good idea.  Just because a function might sleep
it doesn't mean it should sleep.  I'd rather add the might_sleep() to
cond_resched() and replace the former with the latter in the cases where
it makes sense.

-
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/