Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:09:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:09:31 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:29713 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:08:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:08:13 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Andrew Morton , Anton Blanchard , Andrea Arcangeli , Luigi Genoni , Dieter N?tzel , Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Kernel List , Robert Love Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > The preemptible kernel can reschedule, on average, sooner than the > scheduling-point kernel, which has to wait for a scheduling point to > roll around. The preemptible kernel ALSO has to wait for a scheduling point to roll around, since it cannot preempt with spinlocks held. Considering this, I don't see much of an advantage to adding kernel preemption. regards, Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/