From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Povolotsky, Alexander" <Alexander.Povolotsky@marconi.com>
Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'andrebalsa@altern.org'" <andrebalsa@altern.org>,
"'Richard E. Gooch'" <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>,
"'rml@tech9.net'" <rml@tech9.net>,
"'akpm@osdl.org'" <akpm@osdl.org>,
"'Con Kolivas'" <kernel@kolivas.org>
Subject: Re: Preemption of the OS system call due to expiration of the time-sl ice for: a) SCHED_NORMAL (aka SCHED_OTHER) b) SCHED_RR
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:35:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040630103531.GA24347@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF08F42FAE@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com>
* Povolotsky, Alexander <Alexander.Povolotsky@marconi.com> wrote:
> Con - thanks for your kind answers !
>
> Preemption (due to the expiration of the time-slice) of the process,
> while it executes OS system call, - by another process (of equal or
> higher priority) when running under following scheduling policies:
>
> a) SCHED_NORMAL (aka SCHED_OTHER)
> b) SCHED_RR
>
> Is it possible in Linux 2.6 ? Linux 2.4 ?
this is possible in 2.6 in CONFIG_PREEMPT is on. There's no guaranteed
latency due to non-preemptability of interrupts and critical sections
but the practical latencies are well below 1 msec. A bad driver or some
rare codepath we missed could introduce long latencies - but these are
usually easy to fix.
The core 2.6 kernel itself is very latency-friendly, in a very
controlled hardware environment utilizing well-reviewed userspace code,
a slimmed down kernel, no block IO and no high-rate interrupt source
(other than the interrupt source the application cares about) i'd say
it's quite close to hard-RT: all kernel functions have bound latency,
'all' you have to take care of are latencies introduced by hardware
interrupts.
in 2.4 kernel-preemption is done too in lots of places conditionally
(cooperatively), by kernel code. Unlike 2.6 there's no forced preemption
of kernel code.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-30 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-30 9:50 Povolotsky, Alexander
2004-06-30 10:35 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-06-30 10:50 ` Oliver Neukum
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=20040630103531.GA24347@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=Alexander.Povolotsky@marconi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=andrebalsa@altern.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rgooch@atnf.csiro.au \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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®