From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261625AbVDEIAo (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261622AbVDEH7d (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 03:59:33 -0400 Received: from 71-33-33-84.albq.qwest.net ([71.33.33.84]:28053 "EHLO montezuma.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261626AbVDEH4V (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 03:56:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:57:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Esben Nielsen cc: Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Gene Heskett , LKML , "K.R. Foley" , Lee Revell , Rui Nuno Capela Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.43-00 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Esben Nielsen wrote: > > I'm sure a lot of the yield() users could be converted to > > schedule_timeout(), some of the users i saw were for low memory conditions > > where we want other tasks to make progress and complete so that we a bit > > more free memory. > > > > Easy, but damn ugly. Completions are the right answer. The memory system > needs a queue system where tasks can sleep (with a timeout) until the > right amount of memory is available instead of half busy-looping. I agree entirely, that would definitely be a better way to go eventually.