From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1085097417.9801.5.camel@gaston> Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:34:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Giuliano Pochini To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: SMP kernels on single processor machines Cc: linuxppc-dev list Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Lee Braiden Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On 20-May-2004 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 21:48, Lee Braiden wrote: > >> But I quit doing that at some point, after someone (authoritative, but I >> can't remember the details) pointed out that it added complexity, >> debugging issues, etc. Given that I *already* have problems with PPC >> kernels -- latency/lockups, (preempting?), alsa sound, video res, etc., >> I personally wouldn't go near this until I'm fairly confident that the >> other stuff is solid in its own right. >> >> But then, I'm just a luser, not a kernel maintainer ;D > > Yah, well... CONFIG_PREEMPT gives you all the problems of SMP without > any benefit so .... :) 2.6.6 has the CONFIG_PREEMPT option so I thought it was stable. Isn't it ? What are the known problem ? Is only preempt+smp known to have problems ? -- Giuliano. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/