Re: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:42 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: 
> On 08/09/2013 04:04 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > This patch kit is an attempt to get us back to sane code, 
> > mostly by doing proper inlining and doing sleep checks in the right
> > place. Unfortunately I had to add one tree sweep to avoid an nasty
> > include loop.
> > 
> > It costs a bit of text space, but I think it's worth it
> > (if only to keep my blood pressure down while reading ftrace logs...)
> > 
> 
> Looks nice at first glance.
> 
> Now, here is a bigger question: shouldn't we be deprecating/getting rid
> of PREEMPT_VOUNTARY in favor of PREEMPT?

I sure hope not, PREEMPT munches throughput.  If you need PREEMPT, seems
to me what you _really_ need is PREEMPT_RT (the real deal), so
eventually depreciating PREEMPT makes more sense to me.

-Mike

--
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/