Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea _at_ suse.de>]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:33:22PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 07:37, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Its more than a spinlock cleanup at that point. To do anything useful you have
> > to tackle both priority inversion and some kind of at least semi-formal 
> > validation of the code itself. At the point it comes down to validating the
> > code I'd much rather validate rtlinux than the entire kernel
> 
> The preemptible kernel plus the spinlock cleanup could really take us
> far.  Having locked at a lot of the long-held locks in the kernel, I am
> confident at least reasonable progress could be made.
> 
> Beyond that, yah, we need a better locking construct.  Priority
> inversion could be solved with a priority-inheriting mutex, which we can
> tackle if and when we want to go that route.  Not now.
> 
> I want to lay the groundwork for a better kernel.  The preempt-kernel
> patch gives real-world improvements, it provides a smoother user desktop
> experience -- just look at the positive feedback.  Most importantly,
> however, it provides a framework for superior response with our standard

I don't know how to tell you, positive feedback compared to mainline
kernel is totally irrelevant, mainline has broken read/write/sendfile
syscalls that can hang the machine etc... That was fixed ages ago in
many ways, current way is very lightweight, if you can get positive
feedback compared to -aa _that_ will matter.

Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/