![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday 17 of May 2004 00:11, Steven Cole wrote: > On Sunday 16 May 2004 03:29 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, although the regression for my particular machine for this > > > particular load may be interesting, the good news is that I've seen > > > none of the failures which started this whole thread, which are > > > relatively easily reproduceable with PREEMPT set. > > > > So... would it be correct to say that with CONFIG_PREEMPT, ppp or its > > underlying driver stack > > > > a) screws up the connection and hangs and > > > > b) scribbles on pagecache? > > > > Because if so, the same will probably happen on SMP. > > Perhaps someone has the hardware to test this. Well, this may be OT (I'm sorry, if so), but I ran pppd yesterday on 2.6.6-mm2 with no major problems on an SMP box (AMD64). The only problem I had with it is that the pppd died unexpectedly 6-7 minutes after the connection had been established, but this might happen for many reasons. My kernel had been built without CONFIG_PREEMPT, though. - 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 13:03 [W:0.331 / U:0.240 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||