On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:28:07 +0200 Morten Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Wilson wrote: > > I guess the reason for two kernels would be to allow > > a pre-empt version for us daredevils and a non preempt > > for stodgy people who want their systems to have high > > uptime. > > afaik, preempt won't affect stability at all, merely changes in response > times for certain applications (like an X-server) Yes and no :) On an UP system without in-kernel preemption all kernel-spinlocks are removed. (see http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x109.html) So with preemption and if the code is not 100% ok, there is the possibility of locking bugs (same as you have an smp-box). But from where did you get this thing, that preempt is good[tm] for routers? iirc (and as morton said) it's good for low-latency like audio and desktop stuff, but not for servers / networking. Olaf _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
