xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RT and XFS

To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RT and XFS
From: Bill Huey (hui) <bhuey@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:31:32 -0700
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1121444215.19554.18.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <1121209293.26644.8.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20050713002556.GA980@frodo> <20050713064739.GD12661@elte.hu> <1121273158.13259.9.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20050714002246.GA937@frodo> <20050714135023.E241419@melbourne.sgi.com> <1121314226.14816.18.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20050715102311.GA5302@elte.hu> <1121444215.19554.18.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:16:55AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> I don't agree with that. But of course I'm always speaking from a real
> time perspective . PI is expensive , but it won't always be. However, no
> one is forcing PI on anyone, even if I think it's good ..

It depends on what kind of PI under specific circumstances. In the general
kernel, it's really to be avoided at all costs since it's masking a general
contention problem at those places. In a formally provable worst case system
using priority ceiling emulation and stuff, PI really valuable. How a system
like the Linux kernel fits into that is a totally different story. General
purpose kernels using general purpose facilities don't.

That's how I see it.

bill


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