lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com) wrote:

> Threaded kernels are WAAAY overvalued. I did not agree with the
> low-latency patches because I thought they were ugly for no real
> gain. I _would_ agree to the UP-case only thing, simply because it
> uses the SMP locking that already exists, and extends it in a simple
> way to the UP case ("threading" a UP box by making the scheduling
> consider one CPU as a special case of multiple CPU's).

Don't forget the debugging advantages. Suddenly the vast unwashed horde
of us using UP boxes will start beating the SMP locking logic to death
on a daily basis looking for race conditions. :)

So, would this be a 2.4 thing or is it just too dangerous this late in
the game?

Rob

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.021 / U:4.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site