See that "preempt" in line 2 . Linux does not
preempt kernel mode processes otherwise. The beauty of the
non-preemptive kernel is that "in K mode every process makes progress"
and even the "niced app" will complete its use of SemA and
release it in one run. If you have a reasonably fair scheduler you
can make very useful analysis with Linux now of the form
Under 50 active proceses in the system means that in every
2 second interval every process
will get at least 10ms of time to run.
That's a very valuable property and it goes away in a preemptive kernel
to get you something vague.
>
> > Hey my DVD player has stalled, lets add sem_with_revolting_priority_trick!
> > Why the hell is UP Windows XP3 blowing away my Linux box on DVD playing while
> > Linux now runs with the grace and speed of IRIX?
>
> Because the IRIX implementation sucks, every implementation has to suck?
> Somehow I have the suspicion you're trying to discourage everyone from
> even trying, because if he'd succeeded you'd loose a big chunk of
> potential RTLinux customers.
So your argument is that I'm advocating Andrew Morton's patch which
reduces latencies more than the preempt patch because I have a
financial interest in not reducing latencies? Subtle.
In any case, motive has no bearing on a technical argument.
Your motive could be to make the 68K look better by reducing
performance on other processors for all I know.
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/