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

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> nono, i mean the existing ones. (it's 116 not 200) There's no plan to
> add another 100, you've seen all the ones we found to be necessary for
> this.
> 

OK, but most of the new ones are unneeded with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.  I'm still
failing to see why a non-preempt, voluntary preemption kernel even needs to
try to be competitive with a preemptible kernel?

-
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/