Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933106AbYCGA3p (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:29:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761103AbYCGA3c (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:29:32 -0500 Received: from mx1.mxtelecom.com ([87.86.212.101]:35396 "EHLO puma.mxtelecom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760976AbYCGA3c (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:29:32 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1477 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:29:31 EST Message-ID: <47D086A4.6090103@mxtelecom.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:04:52 +0000 From: Matthew Hodgson Organization: MX Telecom Ltd User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Toggling preemption on a running kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 872 Lines: 25 Hi, I'm trying to compare the performance of some networking code (throughput and latency when receiving various volumes of UDP streams) between a preemptible and non-preemptible 2.6.24 kernel, and was wondering if it is possible to temporarily disable preemption on a running preemptible kernel. Is it just a matter of loading a module which calls preempt_enable() at load and preempt_disable() at unload - or is that too naive? Is there an existing way of doing this? thanks, Matthew. -- Matthew Hodgson Media & Systems Project Manager Tel: +44 (0) 845 666 7778 http://www.mxtelecom.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/