[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y

To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Subject: Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:04:26 -0700
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <3D9B6939.397DB9EA@digeo.com> <384860000.1033595383@flay> <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

>> 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.

What does it buy you on a large NUMA box over the low-latency patches?

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

A scary thought ....

M.

--
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
  - From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>

References:
- NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
  - From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
- Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
  - From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
- Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
  - From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] 4KB stack + irq stack for x86
Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] 4KB stack + irq stack for x86
Prev by thread: Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
Next by thread: Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread