Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels

[William Lee Irwin III]

* William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The code we're most worried is buggy, not just nonperformant.

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:56:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> what code do you mean? The one i know about and which Lee is referring
> to above is the 6-lines tty unlocking change - the one which Alan
> objected to rightfully. I've zapped it from my tree.
> (nobody objected to the original thread on lkml weeks ago where the tty
> unlocking change was proposed, implemented, alpha-tested and beta-tested
> in -mm for several releases - that's why it showed up in my 20+
> latency-reduction patches.)
> No latency changes to the tty layer until someone fixes its locking. End
> of story.

I had the buggy code being associated with BKL use in mind as a motive
for the BKL sweeps etc., and wasn't referring to any pending changes.


-- wli
-
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/