Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:14:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:14:36 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:45330 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:14:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable From: Robert Love To: Alan Cox Cc: Stephan von Krawczynski , Roman Zippel , Kenneth Johansson , arjan@fenrus.demon.nl, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.1 Date: 13 Jan 2002 20:17:11 -0500 Message-Id: <1010971032.1528.29.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 19:50, Alan Cox wrote: > Do you want a clean simple solution or complex elegance ? For 2.4 I definitely > favour clean and simple. For 2.5 its an open debate Make no mistake, I do not intend to see preempt-kernel in 2.4. I will, however, continue to maintain the patch for endusers and such that use it. A proper in-kernel solution for 2.4 in my opinion in mini-ll, perhaps extend with any other obviously-completely-utterly sane bits from full-ll. For 2.5, however, I tout preempt as the answer. This does not mean just preempt. It means a preemptible kernel as a basis for beginning low-latency works in manners other than explicit scheduling statements. 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/