[LAU] Kernel 2.6.39

[david]

sonofzev at iinet.net.au 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>> _________
> 
> Hi Ralf, 
> 
> My understanding that there would probably be not much differences for desktop
> users. However (most) server users would not want a pre-emptively built as they
> generally require to share their services whereas pre-emption can cause delays on
> some services... 
> 
> FWIW - this is only my limited understanding..  I have a pre-emptive kernel on my
> general purpose laptop.. On my home server I have no latency on low value kernel
> timer.. .
> 
> I recommend either building your own kernel (fairly easy, especially if you save
> your config from previous builds).. Or getting a pre-built audio purpose kernel.. 

IIRC reading on this list sometime ago, the kernel folk don't want to 
incorporate RT PREEMPT into standard kernels because software running on 
the kernel can use RT stuff to cause a local DoS situation (the software 
using the RT functionality can make the kernel unavailable for non-RT 
uses). Or something like that!

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community