Quoting Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>:
>
>
> Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this
> >>needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to
> >>attack the cause of the problem.
> >>
> >
> >Footnote: I was thinking of using this to also _elevate_ the dynamic
> priority
> >of tasks waking from interruptible sleep as well which may help throughput.
> >
>
> Con, an uninterruptible sleep is one which is not be woken by a signal,
> an interruptible sleep is one which is. There is no other connotation.
> What happens when read/write syscalls are changed to be interruptible?
> I'm not saying this will happen... but come to think of it, NFS probably
> has interruptible read/write.
>
> In short: make the same policy for an interruptible and an uninterruptible
> sleep.
That's the policy that has always existed...
Interesting that I have only seen the desired effect and haven't noticed any
side effect from this change so far. I'll keep experimenting as much as
possible (as if I wasn't going to) and see what the testers find as well.
Con
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:27 EST