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

Bill Davidsen
2004-07-12T22:38:16Z

Andrew Morton 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.
>
> Let me repeat that I am unconvinced as to the diagnosis of the current
> audio problems - more analysis might prove me wrong of course.
>
> And I'm unconvinced that we need to do anything apart from identifying and
> fixing the remaining spinlocks which are holding off preemption for too
> long.
>
> IOW, I am questioning the very need for a "voluntary preemption" feature
> at all when "involuntary preemption" works perfectly well.

You left off the smiley, if the existing approach worked perfectly well
then users wouldn't complain and Ingo would be doing something else with
his time.

Naturally after you identify and fix all those spinlock delays this will
all work even better.

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me