Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, plist fixes
From: Daniel Walker (dwalker_at_mvista.com)
Date: 06/06/05
- Previous message: Matthew Garrett: "Re: Bizarre oops after suspend to RAM (was: Re: [ACPI] Resume from Suspend to RAM)"
- In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, plist fixes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 07:56:12 -0700 (PDT) To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> But indeed it could improve interactivity (but this has not been proven
> yet) - and also for testing purposes it would sure be useful, so we
> should perhaps make ALL_TASKS_PI default-on, as Daniel suggests. If that
> is done then plists are indeed a superior solution. But if in the end we
> decide to only include RT tasks in the PI mechanism (which could easily
> happen) then there seems to be little practical difference between
> sorted lists and plists.
The biggest reason that I suggest this is because when I wrote the
abstracted PI I gave the user of the API the choice to do RT tasks only or
all tasks. In the case of fusyn or futex , they will do all tasks .. Once
you throw in one structure that does all tasks , they may as well all be
doing it. Or that's how I feel.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Matthew Garrett: "Re: Bizarre oops after suspend to RAM (was: Re: [ACPI] Resume from Suspend to RAM)"
- In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, plist fixes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
