From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com
To: Paul McKenney <Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com>
Cc: nigel@nrg.org, ak@suse.de,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar.sarma@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
Suparna Bhattacharya <bsuparna@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:22:13 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010410232213.A8718@hq.fsmlabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFC444FA4A.28BB0BC6-ON88256A2B.0016B71E@LocalDomain>
In-Reply-To: <OFC444FA4A.28BB0BC6-ON88256A2B.0016B71E@LocalDomain>; from Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com on Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:08:16PM -0700
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:08:16PM -0700, Paul McKenney wrote:
> > Disabling preemption is a possible solution if the critical section is
> short
> > - less than 100us - otherwise preemption latencies become a problem.
>
> Seems like a reasonable restriction. Of course, this same limit applies
> to locks and interrupt disabling, right?
So supposing 1/2 us per update
lock process list
for every process update pgd
unlock process list
is ok if #processes < 200, but can cause some unspecified system failure
due to a dependency on the 100us limit otherwise?
And on a slower machine or with some heavy I/O possibilities ....
We have a tiny little kernel to worry about inRTLinux and it's quite
hard for us to keep track of all possible delays in such cases. How's this
going to work for Linux?
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-11 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-11 4:08 Paul McKenney
2001-04-11 5:22 ` yodaiken [this message]
2001-04-11 8:37 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-04-11 8:19 ` Nigel Gamble
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-04-22 13:38 Paul McKenney
2001-04-10 22:08 Paul McKenney
2001-04-10 23:49 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-04-09 12:46 bsuparna
2001-04-09 23:28 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-04-07 23:59 Paul McKenney
2001-04-07 23:54 Paul McKenney
2001-04-10 15:21 ` Rusty Russell
2001-04-07 1:25 Paul McKenney
2001-04-07 21:25 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010410232213.A8718@hq.fsmlabs.com \
--to=yodaiken@fsmlabs.com \
--cc=Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=bsuparna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dipankar.sarma@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=nigel@nrg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®