On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:17:51 -0500
Justin Forbes wrote:
> for them. I have been running preempt=full for quite some time on my
> desktops systems here.
I've been running custom compiled kernels with preempt_full=Y on my
desktop for several years (since at least kernel 5.1). Currently
running
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:53 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 06:14:17PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:44 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
> > > as opposed to full
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, at 9:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> What's the downside from full pre-empt that makes it inappropriate
> as the defualt for Fedora server spins too ? Is it that it is
> trading off overall peak performance in favour of reduced latency,
> and we think servers would
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, at 9:51 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19 2023 at 06:50:24 PM -0400, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
>> If restricted to desktops, then we can only do it with kernel
>> parameters. That probably means doing it in Anaconda kickstart, with
>> a per edition/spin option
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 06:14:17PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:44 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> >
> > I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
> > as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
> > (preempt=full on
On Wed, Jul 19 2023 at 06:50:24 PM -0400, Chris Murphy
wrote:
If restricted to desktops, then we can only do it with kernel
parameters. That probably means doing it in Anaconda kickstart, with
a per edition/spin option for doing so.
I'm not fond of this solution. In practice, this would
On Wed, May 24, 2023, at 2:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2023, at 4:43 PM, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Therefore, I am
>> asking if Fedora should use full kernel preemption by default.
>
> https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/228
>
> The outstanding questions:
>
> a. Do we
Dne 25. 05. 23 v 1:47 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
On 5/24/23 08:44, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 20. 05. 23 v 22:43 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
On 5/24/23 08:44, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Dne 20. 05. 23 v 22:43 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
>> I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
>> as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
>> (preempt=full on kernel command line) makes the system
On Sat, May 20, 2023, at 4:43 PM, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Therefore, I am
> asking if Fedora should use full kernel preemption by default.
https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/228
The outstanding questions:
a. Do we need some tests that help decide this with metrics? If so what should
Dne 20. 05. 23 v 22:43 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
(preempt=full on kernel command line) makes the system significantly
more responsive under heavy I/O
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:44 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
> I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
> as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
> (preempt=full on kernel command line) makes the system significantly
> more responsive under
I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption
as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption
(preempt=full on kernel command line) makes the system significantly
more responsive under heavy I/O load. In particular, if I build a
kernel in a Qubes OS VM,
13 matches
Mail list logo
