Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call

Gerhard Mack
2003-02-24T06:00:18Z

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:57:17 -0800
> From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
> To: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@aracnet.com>
> Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 03:37:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > >> For instance, don't locks simply get compiled away to nothing on
> > >> uni-processor machines?
> > >
> > > Preempt causes most of the issues of SMP with few of the benefits. There
> > > are loads for which it's ideal, but for general use it may not be the
> > > right feature, and I ran it during the time when it was just a patch, but
> > > lately I'm convinced it's for special occasions.
> >
> > Note that preemption was pushed by the embedded people Larry was advocating
> > for, not the big-machine crowd .... ironic, eh?
>
> Dig through the mail logs and you'll see that I was completely against the
> preemption patch. I think it is a bad idea, if you want real time, use
> rt/linux, it solves the problem right.

So your saying I need to switch to rt/linux to run games or an mp3 player?

Gerhard

--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.