On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > >> Disabling pre-emption on critical and/or server machines seems to be a good > >> idea in the first place. IMHO anyway.. ;) > > > > So bottom line is make sure not to use preemption on servers or else you > > will get weird spinlock/deadlocks on RAID devices--GOOD To know! > > This is not a reason. The reason is that preemption usually works worse > on servers, esp. high-loaded servers - the more often you interrupt a > (kernel) work, the more nedleess context switches you'll have, and the > more slow the whole thing works. > > Another point is that with preemption enabled, we have more chances to > hit one or another bug somewhere. Those bugs should be found and fixed > for sure, but important servers/data isn't a place usually for bughunting. > > /mjt > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Thanks for the update/info. Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
