Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: Scaling noise | Date | 8 Sep 2003 19:40:36 GMT |
| |
In article <20030903214233.24d3c902.davem@redhat.com>, David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com> wrote: | On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:52:49 -0700 | Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote: | | > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:50:31AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: | > > There are other arguments, such as how complex locking is, and how it will | > > never work correctly, but those are noise: it's pretty much done now, the | > > complexity is still manageable, and Linux has never been more stable. | > | > yeah, right. I'm not sure what you are smoking but I'll avoid your dealer. | | I hate to enter these threads but... | | The amount of locking bugs found in the core networking, ipv4, and | ipv6 for a year or two in 2.4.x has been nearly nil. | | If you're going to try and argue against supporting huge SMP | to me, don't make locking complexity one of the arguments. :-)
If you count only "bugs" which cause hang or oops, sure. But just because something works doesn't make it simple (or non-complex if you prefer). But look at all the "lockless" changes and such in 2.4, and I think you will agree that there have been a number and it is complex. I don't think stable and complex are mutually exclusive in this case.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
| |