From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: <384860000.1033595383@flay> References: <3D9B6939.397DB9EA@digeo.com> <384860000.1033595383@flay> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 02 Oct 2002 18:02:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 17:49, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > I'd favour the latter. It doesn't seem that useful on big machines like this, > and adds significant complication ... anyone really want it on a NUMA box? If > not, I'll make a patch to disable it for NUMA machines ... I am not one of the 12 people in the world with a NUMA-Q, but I would not like to see you disable kernel preemption. I would really like to see it work on every architecture in every configuration. Is it that hard to make the requisite changes to fix it up? If nothing else, I think you guys can _infinitely_ benefit from the atomicity checking infrastructure that is now in place. Besides, why screw yourself over from the day when preemption is a requirement? ;-) just my two bits, Robert Love -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/