On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block > > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have > > > idled themselves. > > > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that > > well behaved apps weren't the problem? > > Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and > then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. It will, when it gets unblocked from whatever thing it got stuck on. > So you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to > badly-behaved ones. Uhm, how again is blocking a badly behaved app causing harm to the well behaved one? The well behaved one didn't get blocked and still happily waiting (on its own accord, in sys_poll() or something) for something to happen, if it would get an event it'd be placed on the runqueue and do its thing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
