george anzinger wrote:
> Roger Larsson wrote:
> >
>
> > This part can probably be put in a proper non inline function.
> > Cache issues...
> > +/*
> > +* At that point a scheduling is healthy iff:
> > +* - a scheduling request is pending.
> > +
Nigel Gamble wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, ludovic fernandez wrote:
> > This is not the point I was trying to make .
> > So far we are talking about real time behaviour. This is a very
>interesting/exciting
> > thing and we all agree it's a huge task which g
Roger Larsson wrote:
> On Thursday 04 January 2001 09:43, ludovic fernandez wrote:
>
> > I'm not convinced a full preemptive kernel is something
> > interesting mainly due to the context switch cost (actually mmu contex
> > switch).
>
> It will NOT be fully,
Hello Nigel,
Nigel Gamble wrote:
>
> Hi Ludo,
>
> I didn't realise you were still working on this. Did you know that
> I am also? Our most recent version is at:
>
> ftp://ftp.mvista.com/pub/Area51/preemptible_kernel/
>
I was on vacation and had a little time to kill...
Going through your READ
Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> The key idea here is to disable preemption on spin lock and reenable on
> spin unlock. That's a practical idea, highly compatible with the
> current way of doing things. Its a fairly heavy hit on spinlock
> performance, but maybe the overall performance hit is small.
Hello,
For hackers,
The following patch makes the kernel preemptable.
It is against 2.4.0-prerelease on for i386 only.
It should work for UP and SMP even though I
didn't validate it on SMP.
Comments are welcome.
NOTES: since the lock implementation is modified,
you need obviously to re-compile a
6 matches
Mail list logo
