[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Scaling noise
    In article <>,
    David S. Miller <> wrote:
    | On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:52:49 -0700
    | Larry McVoy <> wrote:
    | > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:50:31AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    | > > There are other arguments, such as how complex locking is, and how it will
    | > > never work correctly, but those are noise: it's pretty much done now, the
    | > > complexity is still manageable, and Linux has never been more stable.
    | >
    | > yeah, right. I'm not sure what you are smoking but I'll avoid your dealer.
    | I hate to enter these threads but...
    | The amount of locking bugs found in the core networking, ipv4, and
    | ipv6 for a year or two in 2.4.x has been nearly nil.
    | If you're going to try and argue against supporting huge SMP
    | to me, don't make locking complexity one of the arguments. :-)

    If you count only "bugs" which cause hang or oops, sure. But just
    because something works doesn't make it simple (or non-complex if you
    prefer). But look at all the "lockless" changes and such in 2.4, and I
    think you will agree that there have been a number and it is complex. I
    don't think stable and complex are mutually exclusive in this case.

    bill davidsen <>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
    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 13:48    [W:0.020 / U:9.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site