Re: RT patch acceptance

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Oh? I thought the idea of the voluntary-preempt thing was to stick 
> cond_rescheds into might_sleep. At least that was the part I think I 
> objected to... but I don't think I was one of the participants in that 
> flamewar :)

the VP patchset consisted of dozens of latency-breakers, of the 
->break_lock mechanism, of the might_sleep()s (which were placed based 
on latency tracing tools) and on the cond_resched()s too, (and other 
stuff i forget). Most of this is upstream now. To put a cond_resched() 
into might_sleep() is now a 5-liner :-)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/