lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 06 Oct 2004 13:43:53 +1000
FromNick Piggin <>
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [from the cache]
©2003-2010