On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Benno Senoner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, William Montgomery wrote:
> >> >
> > I am testing this code now. This code appears to allow a long latency
> > path. If you have 2 SCHED_FIFO tasks which are both ready to run and
> > the kernel is in this (long) free_inode loop, one task will get scheduled
> > and if it finishes quickly the other task will have to wait.
> >
> > Could you explain again what the problem is when we always allow
> > schedule?
> >
> > Wm
>
> William, can you explain please this effect more precisely ?
> What does mean "the other task will have to wait" ?
> That the other task will not be scheduled until the inode freeing is finished,
> while the other runs fine ?
Yes. Andrea has suggested that the reschedule should only be allowed once
during the free_inode loop.
> How does the old 2.2.10-lowlatencyN6B kernel react to these 2 SCHED_FIFO
> tasks ?
>
It reacts in the desired manner, however, the 2.2.10-lowlatencyN6B patch
has a bug that Andrea pointed out. If an inode is freed during a
schedule() then the patch does not properly handle that.
Wm
-
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 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:22 EST