11 Jul
2004
11 Jul
'04
8:10 a.m.
Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)elte.hu> wrote:
* Andrew Morton <akpm(a)osdl.org> wrote:
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?
Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)elte.hu> wrote:
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.
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.