On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:42 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/09/2013 04:04 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > This patch kit is an attempt to get us back to sane code, > > mostly by doing proper inlining and doing sleep checks in the right > > place. Unfortunately I had to add one tree sweep to avoid an nasty > > include loop. > > > > It costs a bit of text space, but I think it's worth it > > (if only to keep my blood pressure down while reading ftrace logs...) > > > > Looks nice at first glance. > > Now, here is a bigger question: shouldn't we be deprecating/getting rid > of PREEMPT_VOUNTARY in favor of PREEMPT?
I sure hope not, PREEMPT munches throughput. If you need PREEMPT, seems to me what you _really_ need is PREEMPT_RT (the real deal), so eventually depreciating PREEMPT makes more sense to me. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/