Re: RT patch acceptance

Ingo Molnar
2005-05-24T10:21:59Z

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Oh? I thought the idea of the voluntary-preempt thing was to stick
> cond_rescheds into might_sleep. At least that was the part I think I
> objected to... but I don't think I was one of the participants in that
> flamewar :)

the VP patchset consisted of dozens of latency-breakers, of the
->break_lock mechanism, of the might_sleep()s (which were placed based
on latency tracing tools) and on the cond_resched()s too, (and other
stuff i forget). Most of this is upstream now. To put a cond_resched()
into might_sleep() is now a 5-liner :-)

Ingo