Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262597AbUCRPVH (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:21:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262678AbUCRPUy (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:20:54 -0500 Received: from rrcs-central-24-123-144-118.biz.rr.com ([24.123.144.118]:11080 "EHLO zso-proxy.zeusinc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262597AbUCRPUr (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:20:47 -0500 Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads From: Tom Sightler To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , mjy@geizhals.at, Linux-Kernel In-Reply-To: <20040318015004.227fddfb.akpm@osdl.org> References: <40591EC1.1060204@geizhals.at> <20040318060358.GC29530@dualathlon.random> <20040318015004.227fddfb.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079623222.4167.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:20:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1675 Lines: 39 On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 04:50, Andrew Morton wrote: > I don't recall anyone demonstrating even a 1% impact from preemption. If > preemption was really causing slowdowns of this magnitude it would of > course have been noticed. Something strange has happened here and more > investigation is needed. > > > ... > > I still think after 4 years that such idea is more appealing then > > preempt, and numbers start to prove me right. > > The overhead of CONFIG_PREEMPT is quite modest. Measuring that is simple. Well, I reported an issue on my laptop several weeks ago where network activity via my aironet wireless adapter would use 60-70% of the CPU but only when PREEMPT was enabled. Looking back over the list I see other similar issues with PREEMPT and various network card drivers (8139too and ne2k show up), although most of those seem to be against preempt in 2.4.x not 2.6. I think the user that started this thread was seeing significant regressions during kernel compiles with PREEMPT enabled while the system also has some additional load from Apache (perhaps with significant network activity). I think there are cases like this where PREEMPT seems to trip up. I'll try to reproduce my issue with current generation kernels (last I tested with PREEMPT was 2.6.1) and see if my problem is still there. When I reported the issue last time no one seemed interested so I just learned to disable preempt. Later, Tom - 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/