Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y

[Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>]

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 18:04, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> > 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?

Latency-wise?  Probably very little.  But note Andrew is not going to
maintain the low-latency patches through 2.6/3.0 as far as I know.

The reasons I asked for you to keep it were mainly (a) so everything can
support it, and (b) for the useful atomicity/sleeping debugging checks.

And when I get consumer-level NUMA x86-64 in hopefully a few years I
need kernel preemption to work :)

	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/