mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®