On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:57:07PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 at 22:07, Juan Miguel Cacho wrote: > > Read here for some comments by moshe bar: > > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1436/byt20011024s0002/ > > Thanks, Miguel. But I already read this before, and it's thanks to this > article that I know that kernel preemption is not "all good", in that you > sacrifice throughput for latency. > > What I wanted to clarify was if for such things as the Linux kernel's > handling of router functions (firewalling, NAT, and other stuff that for > Linux is in kernelland) we need more throughput, or latency. And the same > question for multi-function servers (ie: file/web/mail/proxy server in > one) that are becoming more popular in third world countries like ours.
Kernel compile help section of the preempt patch: +Preemptible Kernel +CONFIG_PREEMPT + This option reduces the latency of the kernel when reacting to + real-time or interactive events by allowing a low priority process to + be preempted even if it is in kernel mode executing a system call. + This allows applications to run more reliably even when the system is + under load due to other, lower priority, processes. + + Say Y here if you are building a kernel for a desktop system, embedded + system or real-time system. Say N if you are building a kernel for a + system where throughput is more important than interactive response, + such as a server system. Say N if you are unsure. -- .--. Michael J. Maravillo office://+63.2.894.3592/ ( () ) Q Linux Solutions, Inc. mobile://+63.917.897.0919/ `--\\ A Philippine Open Source Solutions Co. http://www.q-linux.com/ _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
