>> Preemptive gives better interactivity under load, which is the whole
>> point of multitasking (think about it). If you don't want the overhead
>> (which also exists without preemptive) run #processes == #processors.
>
>That is generally not true. Pe-emption is used in user space to prevent
>applications doing very stupid things. Pre-emption in a trusted environment
>can often be most efficient if done by the programs themselves.
>
>Userspace is not a trusted environment
The best part about planned preemption points is that there is minimal
state to save when an interruption occurs.
>
>> I'm really surprised that people are still actually arguing _against_
>> preemptive multitasking in this day and age. This is a no-brainer in
>> the long run, where current corner cases aren't holding us back.
>
>Andrew's patches give you 1mS worst case latency for normal situations, that
>is below human perception, and below scheduling granularity. In other words
>without the efficiency loss and the debugging problems you can place the
>far enough latency below other effects that it isnt worth attacking any more.
Incidently human visual perception runs around 200 milliseconds
minimum and hearing/touch perception around 100 milliseconds if the
signal has to go through the brain. Of course we extend our
perceptions with tools/programs etc.
john
-
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/