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

Andrew Morton
2004-07-11T10:00:20Z

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 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?