[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 wrote:

> Nobody has answered my question about the conflict between SMP per-cpu caching
> and preempt. Since NUMA is apparently the future of MP in the PC world and
> the future of Linux servers, it's interesting to consider this tradeoff.

Preempt is a UP feature so far.

> Nobody has answered the question about how to make sure all processes
> make progress with preempt.

The same way as without preempt.

> Nobody has clearly explained how to avoid what I claim to be the inevitable
> result of preempt -- priority inheritance locks (not just semaphores).
> What we have is some "we'll figure that out when we get to it".

So far you haven't given any reason, how preempt should lead to this.
(If I missed something, please explain it in a way a mere mortal can
understand it.)

> It's not even clear how preempt is supposed to interact with SCHED_FIFO.

The same way as without preempt.

More of other FUD deleted, Victor, could you please stop this?

bye, Roman

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:0.289 / U:3.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site