>
>
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > it was removed by me in the course of this discussion:
> >
> >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/2/58
> >
> > the whole discussion started IIRC because !CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL [the
> > spinlock version] was broken for a longer period of time (it crashed
> > trivially), because nobody apparently used it.
>
> Hmm. I've generally used PREEMPT_NONE, and always thought PREEMPT_BKL
> was the known-flaky one.
>
> The thread you point to also says that it's PREEMPT_BKL=y that was the
> problem (ie "I've seen 1s+ desktop latencies due to PREEMPT_BKL when I
> was still using reiserfs."), not the plain spinlock approach.