Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:16:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:16:38 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:9491 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:16:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:14:47 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: To: cc: Daniel Phillips , Arjan van de Ven , Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: <20020113223438.A19324@hq.fsmlabs.com> Message-ID: 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 Hi, On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > Nobody has answered my question about the conflict between SMP per-cpu caching > and preempt. Since NUMA is apparently the future of MP in the PC world and > the future of Linux servers, it's interesting to consider this tradeoff. Preempt is a UP feature so far. > Nobody has answered the question about how to make sure all processes > make progress with preempt. The same way as without preempt. > Nobody has clearly explained how to avoid what I claim to be the inevitable > result of preempt -- priority inheritance locks (not just semaphores). > What we have is some "we'll figure that out when we get to it". So far you haven't given any reason, how preempt should lead to this. (If I missed something, please explain it in a way a mere mortal can understand it.) > It's not even clear how preempt is supposed to interact with SCHED_FIFO. The same way as without preempt. More of other FUD deleted, Victor, could you please stop this? bye, Roman - 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/