[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091119125906.6ad00edd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:59:06 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: yield() in i2c non-happy paths hits BUG under -rt patch
> Well, I guess only people monitoring system latency would notice, as
> this is the only thing yield() was supposed to help with in the first
> place.
if (need_resched())
schedule();
will make non-rt tasks act politely at the right moments. RT tasks will
likely immediately get to take the CPU again depending upon the
scheduling parameters in use.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists