> I have not seen that argued - certainly I have not argued it myself.
> My argument is:
> It makes the kernel _much_ more complex
It modifies a tiny fraction of a percent of the kernel, which is
currently simplistic rather than simple. Nearly everyone who looks at it
makes some improvement, be it preempt, low latency, etc.
> It has known costs e.g. by making the lockless
> per-processor caching more difficult if not impossible
How much slowdown did you measure when you tested the effect of that?
> It seems to lead to a requirement for inheritance
To the limited extent that I agree, so what?
> It has no demonstrated benefits.
You have that backward. There are many people who say they can see a
benefit, and no one has shown either a quantified bad impact or a single
user account which said it was worse. And I bet you looked, didn't you?
I believe that a system will run better for a single user, and better
for a server with high interrupt rates, like DNS or web servers, where
many threads may be blocked on i/o, but there is significant CPU load as
well.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/