Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

Daniel Phillips
2002-01-08T20:16:05Z

On January 8, 2002 08:47 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> There's no point in just merging the preempt patch and saying "there,
> that's done". It doesn't do anything.
>
> Instead, a decision needs to be made: "Linux will henceforth be a
> low-latency kernel".

I thought the intention was to make it a config option?

> Now, IF we can come to this decision, then
> internal preemption is the way to do it. But it affects ALL kernel
> developers. Because we'll need to introduce a new rule: "it is a
> bug to spend more than five milliseconds holding any locks".
>
> So. Do we we want a low-latency kernel? Are we prepared to mandate
> the five-millisecond rule? It can be done, but won't be easy, and
> we'll never get complete coverage. But I don't see the will around
> here.

At least the flaming has gotten a little less ;-)

--
Daniel