Re: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

[Bill Davidsen]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt
> > models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know
> > what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under
> > normal loads. Define normal as servers and desktops.
>
> This was introduced by Ingo to solve a real problem that I found,
> where some codepath would hold the BKL for long enough to introduce
> excessive scheduling latencies - search list archive for details.  But
> I don't remember the code path (scrolling the FB console?  VT
> switching? reiser3?  misc. ioctl()s?).  Basically, taking the BKL
> disabled preemption which caused long latencies.
>
> It's certainly possible that whatever issue led to this was solved in
> another way since.
Anything is possible. I feel that using voluntary + bkl is probably good 
for most servers, forced preempt for desktop, although it really doesn't 
seem to do much beyond voluntary.

Thanks for the clarification.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/