Re: status of Preemptible Kernel 2.6.7

[Robert Love]

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 13:57 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:

> I vaguely recall someone recently talking about eliminating preempt by 
> improving low-latency.  See, if everything were ideal, we wouldn't need 
> preempt, because all drivers would yield the CPU at appropriate times. 

If everything held locks for only sane periods of time, we would not
need gross explicit yielding all over the place.

To answer Marcus's question: go for it and use it.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/