From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262474AbVE0NfT (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 09:35:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262473AbVE0NfT (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 09:35:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:2733 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262477AbVE0Neo (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 09:34:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:34:04 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , dwalker@mvista.com, bhuey@lnxw.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance Message-ID: <20050527133404.GA15496@elte.hu> References: <4293DCB1.8030904@mvista.com> <20050524192029.2ef75b89.akpm@osdl.org> <20050525063306.GC5164@elte.hu> <1117044019.5840.32.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> <20050526193230.GY86087@muc.de> <20050526200424.GA27162@elte.hu> <20050527123529.GD86087@muc.de> <20050527124837.GA7253@elte.hu> <20050527125630.GE86087@muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050527125630.GE86087@muc.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andi Kleen wrote: > But at least CONFIG_PREEMPT is still reasonably cheap, so it is not as > intrusive as some of the stuff proposed. actually, PREEMPT_RT is not nearly as intrusive (on the source level) as PREEMPT. It's not even in the same ballpark. (because it mostly rides on the top of the intrusion caused by SMP and PREEMPT support.) it's intrusive in terms of performance impact. Ingo