Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I explained several times already why I disagree. Preemption is not a > problem unless you're preempted away for long enough, or IOW if your > counter is too fast. That's my point. Say a nice -19 process gets preempted... what guarantees that it will resume within, the time it takes the counter to wrap? Even if the preempting process goes back to sleep, in that time a bunch of other processes could have woken up and could starve it for a long period of time. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
