On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:33 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 07:56:58PM -0600, Wenji Wu wrote: > > Yes, when CONFIG_PREEMPT is disabled, the "problem" won't happen. That is > > why I put "for 2.6 desktop, low-latency desktop" in the uploaded paper. > > This "problem" happens in the 2.6 Desktop and Low-latency Desktop. > > CONFIG_PREEMPT is only for people that are in for the feeling. There is no > real world advtantage to it and we should probably remove it again.
There certainly is a real world advantage for many applications. Of course it would be better if the latency requirements could be met without kernel preemption but that's not the case now. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
