From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032157AbXEHVGG (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 17:06:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S967854AbXEHVFy (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 17:05:54 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:36273 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967474AbXEHVFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 17:05:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4640E64D.3070304@tmr.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:06:21 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel mailing List Subject: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under normal loads. Define normal as servers and desktops. I've been running some sched tests, and it seems to make little difference how that's set. Before I run a bunch of extra tests, I thought I'd ask. New topic: I have found preempt, both voluntary and forced, seems to help more with response as the HZ gets smaller. How does that play with tickless operation, or are you-all waiting for me to run my numbers with all values of HZ and not, and tell the world what I found? ;-) -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot