Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:13:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:13:29 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:2833 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:13:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable From: Robert Love To: Alan Cox Cc: Rob Landley , yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, nigel@nrg.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.18.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 12 Jan 2002 19:16:03 -0500 Message-Id: <1010880963.3619.10.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 14:00, Alan Cox wrote: > I see absolutely _no_ evidence to support this repeated claim. I'm still > waiting to see any evidence that low latency patches are not sufficient, or > an explanation of who is going to fix all the drivers you break in subtle > ways I'll work on fixing things the patch breaks. I don't think it will be that bad. I've been working on preemption for a long long time, and before me others have been working for a long long time, and I just don't see the hordes of broken drivers or the tons of race-conditions due to per-CPU data. I have seen some, and I have fixed them. For a solution to latency concerns, I'd much prefer to lay a framework down that provides a proper solution and then work on fine tuning the kernel to get the desired latency out of 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/