Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:06 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48 |
| |
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>How about making "preemptive kernel" a "default-on" option on 2.4pre [..]
preemptive kernel is not obvious patch at all. Just to show a very subtle example you can't preempt the mmx clear-page or the FPU state will get screwed up. An explicit preempt_lock() is necessary around the mmx stuff.
I'm not convinced having the kernel preemptable will be worthy even on UP where we don't have the per-cpu data structure locking troubles. It looks more fascinating stuff than real life stuff.
The other way around (the patch to allow some section of code to be preemptible) was quite obviously right instead.
Andrea
- 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/
| |