Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: vallor <vallor@cultnix.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 6.13
Date: 20 Jan 2025 19:06:42 GMT
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <lv7l61Fkht9U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <181c7313cfa9597f$23835$1825$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
	<lv7d06FhfpoU4@mid.individual.net> <lv7dtnFji36U1@mid.individual.net>
	<181c7676b8880a9a$115946$445945$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
	<lv7hj9Fji36U2@mid.individual.net>
	<181c7aa8579b72e5$175359$891815$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net LJdrth4k6fIw8kmCjB+0HAoGWDcm9KczuL5PJhoMruC7cjGrP6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5zBGoJypKYqzU+AZLtlZB1l0MMw= sha256:NgHTBNY09pzY/s7qNiHSnxfwGExwwO1Semf4Rr4LmAM=
X-Face: +McU)#<-H?9lTb(Th!zR`EpVrp<0)1p5CmPu.kOscy8LRp_\u`:tW;dxPo./(fCl
 CaKku`)]}.V/"6rISCIDP`
User-Agent: Pan/0.161 (Hmm2; c45f6052; Linux-6.13.0)
Bytes: 2870

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:40:19 +0000, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux>
wrote in <181c7aa8579b72e5$175359$891815$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:05:29 +0000, vallor wrote:
> 
>> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
>>
> 
> You copied the wrong section:
> 
> config PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
> 	bool "Preemption behaviour defined on boot"
> 	depends on HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
> 	select JUMP_LABEL if HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY
> 	select PREEMPT_BUILD
> 	default y if HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL
> 	help
> 	  This option allows to define the preemption model on the kernel
> 	  command line parameter and thus override the default preemption
> 	  model defined during compile time.
> 
> ***---->  The feature is primarily interesting for Linux distributions which
> 	  provide a pre-built kernel binary to reduce the number of kernel
> 	  flavors they offer while still offering different usecases.
> 
> 	  The runtime overhead is negligible with HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE enabled
> 	  but if runtime patching is not available for the specific architecture
> 	  then the potential overhead should be considered.
> 
> 	  Interesting if you want the same pre-built kernel should be used for
> 	  both Server and Desktop workloads.

Eh, I'll give you that one, because I had it checked.  Standby on that.

Meanwhile, you *still* haven't posted your uname -a, and you *still*
haven't built the latest Pan, and you *still* haven't posted
your "perfect" C code that uses gmp to compute subfactorials.

(BTW, have you figured out yet why you don't want PREEMPT_LAZY?)

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.13.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
   "Please Tell Me if you Don't Get This Message"