From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266543AbUGKKAU (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 06:00:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266545AbUGKKAT (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 06:00:19 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:35790 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266543AbUGKKAP (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 06:00:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 02:58:55 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch Message-Id: <20040711025855.08afbca1.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040711095039.GA22391@elte.hu> References: <20040709182638.GA11310@elte.hu> <20040710222510.0593f4a4.akpm@osdl.org> <20040711093209.GA17095@elte.hu> <20040711024518.7fd508e0.akpm@osdl.org> <20040711095039.GA22391@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar 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?