lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:

>How about making "preemptive kernel" a "default-on" option on 2.4pre [..]

preemptive kernel is not obvious patch at all. Just to show a very subtle
example you can't preempt the mmx clear-page or the FPU state will get
screwed up. An explicit preempt_lock() is necessary around the mmx stuff.

I'm not convinced having the kernel preemptable will be worthy even on UP
where we don't have the per-cpu data structure locking troubles. It looks
more fascinating stuff than real life stuff.

The other way around (the patch to allow some section of code to be
preemptible) was quite obviously right instead.

Andrea


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.138 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site