On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We want to avoid having long latencies, and we can easily get that by
> just allowing timer interrupts to schedule which we're in a big
> "memcpy_to_user()" and we don't hold any kernel lock etc. No need to
> try to be clever at lock release time - if we get a pending
> reschedule, we might as well leave it pending, it's going to be
> serviced soon enough anyway.
yep - and the 'natural blocking' of memcpys is bound (in size) anyway, so
the conditional reschedule is probably faster (and an already proven
solution). I believe there is one more reason to allow a memcpy to finish
before rescheduling: the source buffer is often (especially in the
networking case) already cached, so we are better off if we wait 100 usecs
and reschedule _after_ the memcpy.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST