Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:58:34 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch |
| |
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:48:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > if you dont care about latencies and want to maximize throughput (for > e.g. servers) then you dont want to enable CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. > That way you get artificial batching of parallel workloads.
you just agreed a second time to make all the pollution go away, so why are you talking about servers now? I mean, I don't see why production environments should run the benchmarking testcode. And I totally disagree CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY disabled could provide any benefit on a server (even with the benchmarking on). Servers have to start the next I/O too to avoid leaving some disk idle during a copy-user etc..
let's assume you convert the benchmark sysctl knob into a CONFIG_LOW_RESCHEDULE_OVERHEAD as I suggested in the 30 lines rant, only then it could make sense to classify some of the scheduling points as "high-overhead", but I don't see the need of CONFIG_LOW_RESCHEDULE_OVERHEAD happening any time soon. Though such a config option would make sense theoretically. - 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/
| |