| Date | Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:13:15 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:33:22PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 07:37, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Its more than a spinlock cleanup at that point. To do anything useful you have > > to tackle both priority inversion and some kind of at least semi-formal > > validation of the code itself. At the point it comes down to validating the > > code I'd much rather validate rtlinux than the entire kernel > > The preemptible kernel plus the spinlock cleanup could really take us > far. Having locked at a lot of the long-held locks in the kernel, I am > confident at least reasonable progress could be made. > > Beyond that, yah, we need a better locking construct. Priority > inversion could be solved with a priority-inheriting mutex, which we can > tackle if and when we want to go that route. Not now. > > I want to lay the groundwork for a better kernel. The preempt-kernel > patch gives real-world improvements, it provides a smoother user desktop > experience -- just look at the positive feedback. Most importantly, > however, it provides a framework for superior response with our standard
I don't know how to tell you, positive feedback compared to mainline kernel is totally irrelevant, mainline has broken read/write/sendfile syscalls that can hang the machine etc... That was fixed ages ago in many ways, current way is very lightweight, if you can get positive feedback compared to -aa _that_ will matter.
Andrea - 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/
|