Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:52:30AM +0800, David Xu wrote: > > >>Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >> >> >>>Perhaps this can be tweaked. >>> >>>Kris >>> >>>P.S. Please, no responses about how maybe someone could write a new >>>scheduler that doesn't have this property. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Can you try it again with FULL_PREEMPTION is turned on ? >> >> > >OK. Is this option believed to be "safe" (i.e. largely free from >bugs), and would it be useful to test more widely? > >Kris > > > I didn't test it on big machine. if I remembered it correctly, we only do preemption at user boundary if the FULL_PREEMPTION is turned off, you know system thread won't go to user boundary. :-) David XuReceived on Wed Nov 23 2005 - 23:10:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC