Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:48:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:46:11 -0500 Received: from [66.89.142.2] ([66.89.142.2]:35371 "EHLO starship.berlin") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:44:29 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:24:20 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Roman Zippel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<3C426819.982E5967@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3C426819.982E5967@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 14, 2002 06:09 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > I believe that internal preemption is > the foundation to improve 2.5 kernel latency. But first we need > consensus that we *want* linux to be a low-latency kernel. > > Do we have that? You have it from me, for what it's worth ;-) > If we do, then as I've said before, holding a lock for more than N > milliseconds becomes a bug to be fixed. We can put tools in the hands of > testers to locate those bugs. Easy. Perhaps not a bug, but bad-acting. Just as putting a huge object on the stack is not necessarily a bug, but deserves a quick larting nonetheless. -- Daniel - 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/