From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:17:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:17:12 -0500 Received: from cc361913-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com ([24.0.193.171]:6822 "EHLO mirai.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:17:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3C043B11.2FA17A19@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:17:05 -0800 From: J Sloan Organization: J S Concepts X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.16-pre1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Love CC: linux-kernel Subject: heads-up: preempt kernel and tux NO-GO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi - I have been looking into the tux2 webserver - Man, what a thing of beauty. A web benchmark that sends the load on the web server to 150 when running apache results in a load average of maybe 2 when running tux, and much faster results to boot - anyway, I digress.... I built 2.4.16+low-latency+preempt+tux2, and started testing it. To my horror, the webserver died - I checked the logs and found an oops - (for your edification, I attach it below) So, I figured, preempt and low latency don't mix well - I'll just build a kernel with tux and preempt. To my horror, the new kernel without the low latency patch oopsed immediately as well, as soon as I started an apachebench run from a remote testing box. (for you edification, I include this oops also) I removed the preempt patch and basically compiled just 2.4.16+tux, and hammered on it for several hours - rock solid. So, there is an issue with tux and the preempt patch - I've got big plans for tux atm, so for now I will have to do without preempt - Thanks & Regards, jjs