On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > The first line of attack for this problem is making
> > > wait_task_inactive() sucks less, which shouldn't be too hard,
> > > that unconditional 1 jiffy sleep is simply retarded.
> >
> > I completely agree. However, I'd like to have a non-invasive
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 10:43 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Ingo,
> >
> > I tested this one, and I think it makes sense in any case as an
> > optimization. It should also be good for -stable kernels.
> >
> > Does it look OK?
>
> The idea is good, bu
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 10:43 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I tested this one, and I think it makes sense in any case as an
> optimization. It should also be good for -stable kernels.
>
> Does it look OK?
The idea is good, but there is a risk of preemption latencies here. Some
code pat
* Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > The first line of attack for this problem is making
> > > > wait_task_inactive() sucks less, which shouldn't be too hard,
> > > > that unconditional 1 jiffy sleep is simply retarded.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. How
* Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 10:43 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > I tested this one, and I think it makes sense in any case as an
> > > optimization. It should also be good for -stable kernels.
> > >
> > >
