From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755243AbXKRWqa (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:46:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752800AbXKRWqW (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:46:22 -0500 Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([64.81.245.74]:48680 "EHLO ishtar.tlinx.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752712AbXKRWqV (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:46:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4740C0BC.8010303@tlinx.org> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:46:20 -0800 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LKML Subject: Config Q?: Preempt Model & Preempt Big Kern Lock Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Not big deal, just some config-validity questions regarding i386 preemption models and preemption of the big-kern lock. I.e. the relevant options are: (PM) "Preemption model", there are 3 choices (i386): (none) No Forced Preemption (Server) (vol) Voluntary Preempt (Desktop) (full) Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop) (PBL) "Preempt The Big Kernel Lock" (hint: use Y for desktop, else N) === Are these all "valid" config states? Should they all be valid? I.e., does it make sense to allow "PM==none && PBL==T" ? Does it makes sense to allow "(PM==full) && PBL==F" ? Is the issue of big-kernel-lock preemption of major consequence these days, or should it work in all cases? Are there cases where one might want PBL==F? Would they be limited to the "PM=none" case? Is this the right place or way to ask such questions, or to get information? In asking a similar information question, it seems that it was preferred that a bug be filed. Is that the case here? Thanks, Lin