Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:43:53 +1000 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: Preempt? (was Re: Cannot enable DMA on SATA drive (SCSI-libsata, VIA SATA)) |
| |
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >> So I disagree with your claim that preempt risks to hide inefficient >> code, there are many other (probably easier) ways to detect inefficient >> code than to check the latencies. > > > > You're ignoring the argument :) > > If users and developers are presented with the _impression_ that long > latency code paths don't exist, then nobody is motivated to profile them > (with any tool), much less fix them. >
But even without preempt you'd still have to profile the latency.
If anyone with !preempt notices unacceptable latency, then they can report and/or profile and fix it. If not, then !preempt latency must be acceptable. - 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/
|  |