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.
-
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