22 Jun
2011
22 Jun
'11
11:17 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:02 PM, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
sonofzev(a)iinet.net.au wrote:
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
He's talking about PREEMPT, not RT. Non-RT kernels have that config
option as well (CONFIG_PREEMPT)
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..