Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266605AbUFWTBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:01:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266609AbUFWTBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:01:10 -0400 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([130.57.169.10]:8344 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266605AbUFWS7c (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:59:32 -0400 Subject: Re: status of Preemptible Kernel 2.6.7 From: Robert Love To: Timothy Miller Cc: Marcus Hartig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <40D9C48C.4060004@techsource.com> References: <40D9B20A.4070409@web.de> <40D9C48C.4060004@techsource.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:59:31 -0400 Message-Id: <1088017171.14159.2.camel@betsy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 712 Lines: 19 On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 13:57 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote: > I vaguely recall someone recently talking about eliminating preempt by > improving low-latency. See, if everything were ideal, we wouldn't need > preempt, because all drivers would yield the CPU at appropriate times. If everything held locks for only sane periods of time, we would not need gross explicit yielding all over the place. To answer Marcus's question: go for it and use it. 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/