From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261185AbTHYLaM (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:30:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261238AbTHYLaM (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:30:12 -0400 Received: from c210-49-248-224.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:23487 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261185AbTHYLaJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:30:09 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: mru@users.sourceforge.net (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=20Rullg=E5rd?=), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]O18.1int Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:37:06 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200308231555.24530.kernel@kolivas.org> <200308252050.04147.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200308252137.06060.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:15, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Con Kolivas writes: > >> Vanilla test1 has the spin effect. Test2 doesn't. I haven't tried > >> vanilla test3 or test4. As I've said, the O16.2-O16.3 patch > >> introduced the problem. With that patch reversed, everything is > >> fine. What problem does that patch fix? > > > > It's a generic fix for priority inversion but it induces badness in smp, > > and latency in task preemption on up so it's not suitable. > > Now I'm confused. If that patch is bad, then why is it in O18? No, the 16.2 patch is bad. 16.3 backed it out. Con