Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y

[Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>]

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 17:49, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> I'd favour the latter. It doesn't seem that useful on big machines like this,
> and adds significant complication ... anyone really want it on a NUMA box? If
> not, I'll make a patch to disable it for NUMA machines ...

I am not one of the 12 people in the world with a NUMA-Q, but I would
not like to see you disable kernel preemption.

I would really like to see it work on every architecture in every
configuration.  Is it that hard to make the requisite changes to fix it
up?

If nothing else, I think you guys can _infinitely_ benefit from the
atomicity checking infrastructure that is now in place.

Besides, why screw yourself over from the day when preemption is a
requirement? </semi-kidding> ;-)

just my two bits,

	Robert Love


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/