[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
    > > But you get interrupted by other interrups then so you have the same problem
    > > reagardless of any preemtion patch you hopefully lose the cpu for a much
    > > shorter time but still the same problem.
    > Agreed. Further, you can't put _any_ upper bound on the number of
    > interrupts that could occur, preempt or not. Sure, preempt can make it
    > worse, but I don't see it. I have no bug reports to correlate.

    How may full benchmark sets have you done on an NE2000. Its quite obvious
    from your earlier mail you hadn't even considered problems like this.

    Let me ask you the _right_ question instead

    - Prove to me that there are no cases that pre-empt doesn't screw up
    like this.
    - Prove to me that pre-empt is better than the big low latency patch

    All I have seen so far is benchmarks that say low latency is better as is,
    and evidence that preempt patches cause far more problems than they solve
    and have complex and subtle side effects nobody yet understands.

    Furthermore its obvious that the only way to fix these side effects is to
    implement full priority handling to avoid priority inversion issues (which
    is precisely what the IRQ problem is) , that means implementing interrupt
    handlers as threads, heavyweight locks and an end result I'm really not
    interested in using.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.021 / U:6.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site