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

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For all the
>  other 200 might_sleep() points it doesnt matter much.

Sorry, but an additional 100 might_sleep()s is surely excessive for
debugging purposes, and unneeded for latency purposes: all these sites are
preemptible anyway.

Let me repeat that I am unconvinced as to the diagnosis of the current
audio problems - more analysis might prove me wrong of course.

And I'm unconvinced that we need to do anything apart from identifying and
fixing the remaining spinlocks which are holding off preemption for too
long.

IOW, I am questioning the very need for a "voluntary preemption" feature
at all when "involuntary preemption" works perfectly well.

-
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/