Re: RT patch acceptance

David Lang
2005-05-31T20:16:12Z

how much of a slowdown is it?

distros already throw >20% performance improvements on the floor to
simplify their lives by reduceing the number of different binary kernels
they have to support.

somehow I don't think a 5% or so (which is the locking overhead of running
a SMP kernel on UP last I heard) would be the end of the world for them,
especially if it made multimedia eye candy work smoother.

David Lang

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Date: 31 May 2005 22:01:14 +0200 Tue, 31 May 2005 22:01:14 +0200
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: karim@opersys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
> hch@infradead.org, dwalker@mvista.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
> Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com>,
> James Bruce <bruce@andrew.cmu.edu>, kus Kusche Klaus <kus@keba.com>,
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk>,
> "Bill Huey (hui)" <bhuey@lnxw.com>
> Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I would assume that the distros would ship without PREEMPT enabled
>> because it was (and probably still is) considered unstable.
>
> In addition to that it is slow too due to much increased locking
> overhead.
>
> -Andi
> -
> 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/
>

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare