On Wednesday 18 June 2008 22:25, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:16 AM, in message > > Yeah - migrate_disable() has been proposed several times. The reason I > > don't like it is that is creates scheduling artefacts like latencies by > > not being able to load-balance (and thereby complicates all that, and > > you know we don't need more complication there). > > True, and good point. But this concept would certainly be useful to avoid > the heavyweight (w.r.t. latency) preempt-disable() in quite a few different > areas, so if we can make it work with reasonable visibility, it might be > nice to have. It just seems like pretty worthless bloat to me. There are _some_ cases where it can be used, but nobody has been able to come up with compelling uses really. I don't think this case is helped very much either because the logic in there using preempt-disable is fine, isn't it? Except that it should also have a cond_resched in it. Seems like an ideal place to put cond_resched because it is not a fastpath. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
