From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Cc: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@idb.hist.no>,
Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: low-latency patches
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:24:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BC1EF61.9ECD3273@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au> <20011006150024.C2625@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <3BC1A062.6E953751@idb.hist.no> <3BC1E53E.2A67202A@mvista.com>
george anzinger wrote:
>
> Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay
> "hackers"? If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks
> and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders?
> As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal. Even if I miss, I will
> still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane.
Right. It needs to be a conscious, planned decision: "from now on,
holding a lock for more than 500 usecs is a bug".
So someone, be it Linus, "the community" or my Mum needs to decide
that this is a feature which the kernel will henceforth support.
It's a new feature - it should be treated as such.
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-08 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-06 6:05 low-latency patches Bob McElrath
2001-10-06 6:46 ` Andrew Morton
2001-10-06 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-10-06 20:42 ` Bob McElrath
2001-10-06 22:00 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-06 22:22 ` Robert Love
2001-10-08 12:47 ` Helge Hafting
2001-10-08 17:41 ` george anzinger
2001-10-08 18:24 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2001-10-08 18:36 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-07 1:12 ` Robert Love
2001-10-07 2:38 ` Jeffrey W. Baker
2001-10-07 2:55 ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:36 ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:46 ` Mike Fedyk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-10 15:27 David Balazic
2001-03-08 13:06 Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BC1EF61.9ECD3273@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=helgehaf@idb.hist.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox