[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316531874.29966.63.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:17:54 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for
this_cpu_read/write()
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 09:58 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > What's the latency hit on those very few locations if we simply put our
> > > collective foot down and not support a preemptable version of this_cpu_*()?
> > > "Yes, you *could* preempt here, but for our collective sanity that's not
> > > supported"...
> >
> > Full ack.
>
> Latency hit could be very significant in various critical kernel paths.
> Especially network subsystem, vm event counters etc.
Latency hit is better than incorrect behavior. I tell people working on
-rt all the time. A bug/kernel crash is much worse than a hit in
latency, as a bug/kernel crash causes a much bigger latency hit than
anything else.
-- Steve
--
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