![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Ivan, On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 02:01:41 +0300 Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru> 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: > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397 > > > > 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. greets Marc - 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 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||