On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:32 +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > 1) Do you agree that the problem exists and should be sorted out?
This is two questions.. yes it exists, I'm absolutely sure I pointed it out as soon as people even started talking about this nonsense (bw cruft). Should it be sorted, dunno, in general !PREEMPT_RT is very susceptible to all this and in general we don't fix it. > 2) If so, does the general approach proposed (unthrottling on wakeups) suits > you? Why or why not? its a quick hack similar to existing hacks done for rt, preferably we'd do smarter things though. > 3) If you think that the approach proposed is sane, what you dislike about the > patch? its not inlined, its got coding style issues, but worst of all, you added yet another callback from the schedule() path and did it wrong ;-) Also, it adds even more bw cruft overhead to regular scheduling paths, we took some pains to limit that when we introduced the fail^Wfeature. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
