linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems with CONFIG_PREEMPT

To: Colin.Helliwell@Zarlink.Com
Subject: Re: Problems with CONFIG_PREEMPT
From: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:03:07 -0800
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, jsun@mvista.com, rml@mvista.com
In-reply-to: <OF78526308.B4153FAC-ON80256C92.002B416F@zarlink.com>; from Colin.Helliwell@Zarlink.Com on Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:27:16AM +0000
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <OF78526308.B4153FAC-ON80256C92.002B416F@zarlink.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:27:16AM +0000, Colin.Helliwell@Zarlink.Com wrote:
> 
> NEW_TIME_C is set. URL to the patch is:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/preempt-kernel/v2.4/preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.19-2.patch
>

There are some bits missing.  Not sure if it is related to your problem or not.

Robert, please take the MIPS preemptible kernel update patch.

> We ultimately want to add in real-time support, such as Ingo's O(1)
> scheduler - if this is 'complete' for MIPS. 

O(1) shortens process dispatching time, usually not a big time saver
unless you have *lots* of process and/or you are doing frequent context
switches.

Another patch which is probably more important is the Ingo's breaking
selected big lock patch.  That will preemption work more effectively.

> I don't know if it would be
> better just to go for this in one hit, or if we'd need the preemption
> sorted out anyway first. 

You do have to sort them out one by one.  (Or you get them all by becoming
mvista customer. :-0)

> Or should we just go to a 2.5.x kernel instead?

We'd love to have more people bang on 2.5 MIPS *grin* ...

Jun
 

Attachment: 021217-mips-2.4-prek-update.patch
Description: Text document

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>