From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:04:26 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: NUMA is bust with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y Message-ID: <389320000.1033596266@flay> In-Reply-To: <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy> References: <3D9B6939.397DB9EA@digeo.com> <384860000.1033595383@flay> <1033596139.27343.14.camel@phantasy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robert Love Cc: Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: >> 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. What does it buy you on a large NUMA box over the low-latency patches? > Besides, why screw yourself over from the day when preemption is a > requirement? ;-) A scary thought .... M. -- 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/