lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels
From
Date
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 10:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Another thing, I don't mean this to sound like a rhetorical question,
> > but if we have a preemptible kernel, why is it a good idea to sprinkle
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > cond_rescheds everywhere? Isn't this now the worst of both worlds? Why
> > would someone who really cares about latency not enable preempt?
>
> two things:
>
> 1) none of the big distros enables CONFIG_PREEMPT in their kernels - not
> even SuSE. This is pretty telling.
>

I am not sure this means preemption is a bad idea, it just means there's
no point in enabling CONFIG_PREEMPT with the current kernel because it's
not enough of an improvement to make a difference for low latency
applications.

Lee

-
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    [W:0.088 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site