In Solaris, before spinning on a busy spin-lock, thread checks whether
spin-lock holder runs on the same processor. If so, thread goes to sleep
and holder wakes it up on spin-lock release. The same, I guess is going
for interrupts that are served as separate threads. This way, one can
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 19:15, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
All I'm saying is that you should check for = 0, not == 0.
And I am saying we already keep track of that, we have a preemption
counter.
But anwyays it's pretty depressing to see such a costly check needed to
get latency right with the
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Beau Kuiper wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2001 03:12:44 PM +0800 Beau Kuiper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Resierfs on 2.4 has always been bog slow.
I have identified kupdated as the culprit, and have 3
On Thursday, September 20, 2001 07:08:25 PM +0200 Dieter Nützel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please have a look at Robert Love's Linux kernel preemption patches and
the conversation about my reported latency results.
Andrew Morton has patches that significantly improve the reiserfs latency,
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 18:37, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:24:48PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
if (current-need_resched current-lock_depth == 0) {
unlock_kernel();
lock_kernel();
}
nitpicking: the above is fine but it isn't complete, it may work for
most
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 13:08, Dieter Nützel wrote:
I examined that ReiserFS suffer from kupdated since 2.4.7-ac3.
When ever I do kill -STOP kupdated the performance is much better.
I know this is unsafe...
The patches that are going around in this thread (stuff from Andrew
Morton and Andrea)
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 13:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andrew, are these still maintained or should I pull out the reiserfs bits?
This is the reiserfs part - it applies to 2.4.10-pre12 OK.
For the purposes of Robert's patch, conditional_schedule()
should be defined as
if
Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2001 22:52 schrieb Robert Love:
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 13:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andrew, are these still maintained or should I pull out the reiserfs
bits?
This is the reiserfs part - it applies to 2.4.10-pre12 OK.
For the purposes of Robert's patch,
