Not big deal, just some config-validity questions regarding
i386 preemption models and preemption of the big-kern lock.
I.e. the relevant options are:
(PM) "Preemption model", there are 3 choices (i386):
(none) No Forced Preemption (Server)
(vol) Voluntary Preempt (Desktop)
(full) Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)
(PBL) "Preempt The Big Kernel Lock" (hint: use Y for desktop, else N)
===
Are these all "valid" config states? Should they all be valid?
I.e., does it make sense to allow "PM==none && PBL==T" ?
Does it makes sense to allow "(PM==full) && PBL==F" ?
Is the issue of big-kernel-lock preemption of major consequence
these days, or should it work in all cases? Are there cases
where one might want PBL==F? Would they be limited to the
"PM=none" case?
Is this the right place or way to ask such questions, or to
get information?
In asking a similar information question, it seems that it
was preferred that a bug be filed. Is that the case here?
Thanks,
Lin
-
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Christoph Lameter | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
git: | |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [PATCH 06/32] IGET: Mark iget() and read_inode() as being obsolete [try #2] |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
