Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads
From: Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, mjy@geizhals.at,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20040318145129.GA2246@dualathlon.random>
References: <40591EC1.1060204@geizhals.at>
	 <20040318060358.GC29530@dualathlon.random>
	 <20040318015004.227fddfb.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <20040318145129.GA2246@dualathlon.random>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1079632130.6043.6.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:48:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 796
Lines: 22

On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 09:51, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> the counter is definitely not optimized away, see:

This is because of work Dave Miller and Ingo did - irq count, softirq
count, and lock count (when PREEMPT=y) are unified into preempt_count. 

So it is intended.

The unification makes things cleaner and simpler, using one value in
place of three and one interface and concept in place of many others. 
It also gives us a single simple thing to check for an overall notion of
"atomicity", which is what makes debugging so nice.

	Robert Love


-
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/