On 06/21/2011 09:03 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Hi, > > could there be any disadvantages for averaged desktop users, server > usage etc., if the kernel 2.6.39 is build as PREEMPT kernel? > > Today I installed the kernel from the repositories of a major Distro: > > $ uname -a > Linux debian 2.6.39-2-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 8 11:01:04 UTC 2011 x86_64 > GNU/Linux > > Some time ago I build the kernel myself: > > $ uname -a > Linux debian 2.6.39.1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 7 01:40:05 CEST 2011 x86_64 > GNU/Linux > > I'm asking, because I want to know, if it would be reasonable to appeal, > that major distros should build it as PREEMPT kernel. Well, they should offer the option (a kernel-flavor - compare to -bigmem or -xen, or -vserver, etc). but as default: no. Preemptive scheduling introduces some overhead [for each process] and effectively reduces throughput. As the vast majority of systems (both Desktop and Server) do not run any processes with SCHED_FF or use elevated scheduling priorities. Thus there is no benefit and only drawbacks (the machine is a tiny-bit slower and consumes more power with a PREEMPT kernel). robin _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
