lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 0(1)-patch, where did it go?
Date
On Donnerstag, 11. April 2002 :30, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 23:27, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > But I see some kernel hangs with preemption on UP.
> > It happens only during "make bzlilo" (the linking stage). Robert?
> > Apart from that it works well.
>
> It is probably lock-break, not preempt. I don't have lock-break patches
> for 2.4.19-pre yet. Lock-break/low-latency and the more general lock
> breaking / explicit schedule work is very reliant on the version of the
> kernel they were designed against. This is why this approach is not a
> proper long-term solution ...

OK, thanks Robert will try without it after some sleep.

But preemption without lock-break on 2.4 is like running without preemption.
The general latency problem with O(1) for 2.4 still stands.
Do you have similar observations with the current -ac tree?
You should have my numbers.

I only would bring your focus somewhat back to 2.4 'cause 2.6 is so far...

Thanks,
Dieter
-
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 13:25    [W:0.043 / U:5.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site