[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.4 on Alpha uninterruptible sleep of processes
    Hi Ivan,

    On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 02:01:41 +0300
    Ivan Kokshaysky <> wrote:

    > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:52:15PM +0100, Marc Giger wrote:
    > > Right now I'm recompiling the kernel. So you say this patch isn't a
    > > fix but a test?
    > Yes. That patch just reverts new alpha semaphore stuff which went
    > into 2.6.4.
    > > This time I have additionally "semaphore debugging" enabled,
    > > perhaps it's useful for you.
    > Thanks, this might be helpful.

    Hmm, I couldn't boot the kernel with enabled "semaphore debugging". It
    hangs directly after aboot. No messages, nothing. Do I something wrong?
    Now I've booted 2.6.4 without debugging.

    > > > The answer is here:
    > > >
    > >
    > > That's no answer, that's a statement:-) Do know the exactly reason
    > > why it should be a bad idea? Is it mostly a bad idea on alpha?
    > Hmm, I haven't discussed that with Richard, so I can't speak for him
    > :-) IMHO, the benefits of the kernel preempt support in general are
    > more than doubtful, the level of complexity that it adds to the kernel
    > code is just unacceptable.

    Ok, but I read somewhere exactly the opposite (lkml?).
    The statement was something like the following: "Preempt doesn't need
    much more infrastrucure in kernel code, because the needed locking
    mechanism is already there (SMP)."

    So I'm confused now:-) But I understand that every little more
    complexity is not for free. More task switches etc...

    Thank you for the infos.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.023 / U:2.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site