lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 03:37:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> For instance, don't locks simply get compiled away to nothing on
> >> uni-processor machines?
> >
> > Preempt causes most of the issues of SMP with few of the benefits. There
> > are loads for which it's ideal, but for general use it may not be the
> > right feature, and I ran it during the time when it was just a patch, but
> > lately I'm convinced it's for special occasions.
>
> Note that preemption was pushed by the embedded people Larry was advocating
> for, not the big-machine crowd .... ironic, eh?

Dig through the mail logs and you'll see that I was completely against the
preemption patch. I think it is a bad idea, if you want real time, use
rt/linux, it solves the problem right.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
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 13:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans