Re: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

* Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This was introduced by Ingo to solve a real problem that I found, > > where some codepath would hold the BKL for long enough to introduce > > excessive scheduling latencies - search list archive for details. > > But I don't remember the code path

Re: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

Lee Revell wrote: On 5/8/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under normal loads. Defi

Re: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

On 5/8/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under normal loads. Define normal as server

Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under normal loads. Define normal as servers and desktops. I've been running some sched test