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: <389320000.1033596266@flay> References: <3D9B6939.397DB9EA@digeo.com> <384860000.1033595383@flay> <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy> <389320000.1033596266@flay> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1033596906.27765.39.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 02 Oct 2002 18:15:07 -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 18:04, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > 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. > > What does it buy you on a large NUMA box over the low-latency patches? Latency-wise? Probably very little. But note Andrew is not going to maintain the low-latency patches through 2.6/3.0 as far as I know. The reasons I asked for you to keep it were mainly (a) so everything can support it, and (b) for the useful atomicity/sleeping debugging checks. And when I get consumer-level NUMA x86-64 in hopefully a few years I need kernel preemption to work :) 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/