lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Scaling noise
Date
In article <20030903214233.24d3c902.davem@redhat.com>,
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
| On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:52:49 -0700
| Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> 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 <davidsen@tmr.com>
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 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 13:48    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans