[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805071017130.3024@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> it was removed by me in the course of this discussion:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/2/58
>
> the whole discussion started IIRC because !CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL [the
> spinlock version] was broken for a longer period of time (it crashed
> trivially), because nobody apparently used it.
Hmm. I've generally used PREEMPT_NONE, and always thought PREEMPT_BKL was
the known-flaky one.
The thread you point to also says that it's PREEMPT_BKL=y that was the
problem (ie "I've seen 1s+ desktop latencies due to PREEMPT_BKL when I was
still using reiserfs."), not the plain spinlock approach.
But it would definitely be interesting to see the crash reports. And the
help message always said "Say N if you are unsure." even if it ended up
being marked 'y' by default at some point (and then in January was made
first unconditional, and then removed entirely)
Because in many ways, the non-preempt BKL is the *much* simpler case. I
don't see why it would crash - it just turns the BKL into a trivial
counting spinlock that can sleep.
Linus
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists