Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:20:13 -0800 | From | J Sloan <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
Daniel Phillips wrote:
>On January 14, 2002 12:33 am, J Sloan wrote: > >>Dieter Nützel wrote: >> >>>You told me that TUX show some problems with preempt before. What >>>problems? Are they TUX specific? >>> >>On a kernel with both tux and preempt, upon >>access to the tux webserver the kernel oopses >>and tux dies... >> > >Ah yes, I suppose this is because TUX uses per-cpu data as a replacement >for spinlocks. Patches that use per-cpu shared data have to be >preempt-aware. Ingo didn't know this when he wrote TUX since preempt didn't >exist at that time and didn't even appear to be on the horizon. He's >certainly aware of it now. > I am looking forward to testing out the new code ;-)
>>OTOH the low latency patch plays quite well >>with tux. As said, I have no anti-preempt agenda, >>I just need for whatever solution I use to work, >>and not crash programs and services we use. >> > >Right, and of course that requires testing - sometimes a lot of it. This one >is a 'duh' that escaped notice. temporarily. It probably would have been >caught sooner if we'd started serious testing/discussion sooner. > Well I'm glad to hear that - I had been doing a lot of preempt testing on my boxes, up until the time I started using tux widely. When I told Robert of the tux/preempt incompatibilties, he mentioned the per-cpu shared data and said something to the effect that the tux problems did not surprise him. I didn't get the feeling that tux was high on his list of priorities.
Hopefully that is not the case after all -
Regards,
jjs
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |