Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > For all the > > > other 200 might_sleep() points it doesnt matter much. > > > > Sorry, but an additional 100 might_sleep()s is surely excessive for > > debugging purposes, and unneeded for latency purposes: all these sites > > are preemptible anyway. > > nono, i mean the existing ones. (it's 116 not 200) There's no plan to > add another 100, you've seen all the ones we found to be necessary for > this. >
OK, but most of the new ones are unneeded with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. I'm still failing to see why a non-preempt, voluntary preemption kernel even needs to try to be competitive with a preemptible kernel?
