Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:13:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:13:32 -0500 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:54801 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:13:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:05:59 -0700 From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com To: Roman Zippel Cc: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, Alan Cox , Robert Love , Kenneth Johansson , arjan@fenrus.demon.nl, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable Message-ID: <20020113180559.A18194@hq.fsmlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <3C41ED4E.4D3F2D2C@linux-m68k.org> <20020113171006.A17958@hq.fsmlabs.com> <3C42293F.4962EC82@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3C42293F.4962EC82@linux-m68k.org>; from zippel@linux-m68k.org on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:41:35AM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:41:35AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > > > > It's a useful patch for anyone, who needs good latencies now, but it's > > > still a quick&dirty solution. Preempt offers a clean solution for a > > > certain part of the problem, as it's possible to cleanly localize the > > > needed changes for preemption (at least for UP). That means the ll patch > > > becomes smaller and future work on ll becomes simpler, since a certain > > > > That is exactly what Andrew Morton disputes. So why do you think he is > > wrong? > > Please explain, what do you mean? I mean, that these conversations are not very useful if you don't read what the other people write. Here's a prior response by Andrew to a post by you. >From akpm@zip.com.au Sat Jan 12 13:15:22 2002 Roman Zippel wrote: > > Andrew's patch requires constant audition and Andrew can't audit all > drivers for possible problems. That doesn't mean Andrew's work is > wasted, since it identifies problems, which preempting can't solve, but > it will always be a hunt for the worst cases, where preempting goes for > the general case. Guys, I've heard this so many times, and it just ain't so. The overwhelming majority of problem areas are inside locks. All the complexity and maintainability difficulties to which you refer exist in the preempt patch as well. There just is no difference. > > bye, Roman -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.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/