linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1164905470.12607.71.camel@mindpipe>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:51:09 -0500
From:	Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/