Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

# Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:22:47 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Bornemann: "Re: Parport-PS/2 mouse conflicts (2.4.0-test2)"
- Previous message: Russell King: "Re: -Werror in test3-pre2"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Barton-Davis: "a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Next in thread: Paul Barton-Davis: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"

> On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 09:52:35AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > So the choices are then
> >
> > a) non-threaded UP and threaded SMP vs
> > b) threaded UP and threaded SMP.
> >
> > Sun took choice (b) and SGI took choice (a). I've worked in both places
> > on both kernels and I believe that the Sun approach is better.
>
> Wow, I must have misread you then all over the years.
>
> So why do you believe that threaded UP is better than non-threaded UP ?
> (what advantage does it give that pays back the immense costs)

Please read the post you replied to. I don't believe that threaded UP
is better than non-threaded UP, I believe that if you are going to have
a source base that is threaded at all, you should run the same code
everywhere, SMP and UP. That way you have one code base to debug and
maintain, and there is back pressure to make sure the threading doesn't
get out of hand.

That's very different from saying "threaded UP is better than non-threaded
UP".

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

- Next message: Peter Bornemann: "Re: Parport-PS/2 mouse conflicts (2.4.0-test2)"
- Previous message: Russell King: "Re: -Werror in test3-pre2"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Barton-Davis: "a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Next in thread: Paul Barton-Davis: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"