![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On January 8, 2002 08:47 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > There's no point in just merging the preempt patch and saying "there, > that's done". It doesn't do anything. > > Instead, a decision needs to be made: "Linux will henceforth be a > low-latency kernel". I thought the intention was to make it a config option? > Now, IF we can come to this decision, then > internal preemption is the way to do it. But it affects ALL kernel > developers. Because we'll need to introduce a new rule: "it is a > bug to spend more than five milliseconds holding any locks". > > So. Do we we want a low-latency kernel? Are we prepared to mandate > the five-millisecond rule? It can be done, but won't be easy, and > we'll never get complete coverage. But I don't see the will around > here. At least the flaming has gotten a little less ;-) -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||