lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
On 08/09/2013 10:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>> Now, here is a bigger question: shouldn't we be deprecating/getting rid
>> of PREEMPT_VOUNTARY in favor of PREEMPT?
>
> I sure hope not, PREEMPT munches throughput. If you need PREEMPT, seems
> to me what you _really_ need is PREEMPT_RT (the real deal), so
> eventually depreciating PREEMPT makes more sense to me.
>

Do you have any quantification of "munches throughput?" It seems odd
that it would be worse than polling for preempt all over the kernel, but
perhaps the additional locking is what costs.

-hpa




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-10 18:41    [W:0.136 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site