> benno@gardena.net (Benno Senoner) writes:
> >
> > An update kernel thread could work as well, but it might be more complicated to
> > implement this, plus you get async updates instead of sync updates which is not
> > really desired.
> >
> > correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Only processes in user mode get preemptive scheduling, so even a kernel
> thread won't safe you from inserting the required schedule()s in the kernel
> code (except when you go rtlinux)
>
> -Andi
>
Yep, you are right I forgot this completely, that's why Ingo in his low-latency
patch
shortened the execution paths, and inserted rescheduling hookups.
This scheduling remembers me windoze's 3.11 "cooperative" multitasking.
:-)
Benno.
-
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/