Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:34:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com>, dwalker@mvista.com,
       bhuey@lnxw.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hch@infradead.org,
       akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance
Message-ID: <20050527133404.GA15496@elte.hu>
References: <4293DCB1.8030904@mvista.com> <20050524192029.2ef75b89.akpm@osdl.org> <20050525063306.GC5164@elte.hu> <m1br6zxm1b.fsf@muc.de> <1117044019.5840.32.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> <20050526193230.GY86087@muc.de> <20050526200424.GA27162@elte.hu> <20050527123529.GD86087@muc.de> <20050527124837.GA7253@elte.hu> <20050527125630.GE86087@muc.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050527125630.GE86087@muc.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 660
Lines: 18


* Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote:

> But at least CONFIG_PREEMPT is still reasonably cheap, so it is not as 
> intrusive as some of the stuff proposed.

actually, PREEMPT_RT is not nearly as intrusive (on the source level) as 
PREEMPT. It's not even in the same ballpark. (because it mostly rides on 
the top of the intrusion caused by SMP and PREEMPT support.)

it's intrusive in terms of performance impact.

	Ingo
-
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/