* Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Slander. Certainly validation is good. Its just that PREEMPT kernels
> > > are not in use
> >
> > Complete bullshit, its part of the mainline kernel, lots of people run
> > them -- including me, and any patch is supposed to keep it working.
>
> Nonsense. There is no main line distro that supports full preempt. Its
> an academic exercise.
You are dead wrong on multiple levels.
Firstly, here's a "popularity list" of preempt kernel config options,
distilled from kernel configs sent to lkml, from a time span of a couple
of months:
73 CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
81 CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
135 CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y is in fact more popular than the other two modes of
preemption, amongst kernel testers who post configs to lkml.
Secondly, even if, hypotethically, in an alternate universe,
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y was used only rarely, the preempt debug checks are still
very important for automated testing: they often catch bugs that are
relevant on !PREEMPT as well. (such as accidental unlocked access) The
last thing we want to do is to reduce the 'reach' of debug checks.
Distros typically go for the lowest overhead preemption option with server
loads in mind - still even they enjoy the bug fixes generated by the
preempt checks.
So my NAK stands: you are still in denial, you should stop the silly
arguing and you should stop wasting maintainer time. You need to address
PeterZ's review feedback and fix the bugs in your patches, ASAP.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
