Re: Should we be using CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL in the Fedora kernel?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > yes, we should keep it enabled - it's the default upstream and we 
> > havent had PREEMPT_BKL related bugs for a really long time.
> > 
> > in fact i had more !PREEMPT_BKL bugs than PREEMPT_BKL bugs. (BKL 
> > spinlock recursion for example)
> 
> well, PREEMPT_BKL is not the default - my points remain nevertheless.

let me double-correct myself: PREEMPT_BKL is indeed default enabled on 
SMP:

 config PREEMPT_BKL
         bool "Preempt The Big Kernel Lock"
         depends on SMP || PREEMPT
         default y
         help

so basically everyone who tests SMP kernels has it.

	Ingo


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux