New comment by ahesford on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/18940#issuecomment-583903951

Comment:
> Not a dev, but I suspect the number of gamers and multimedia users on Void far exceeds the number of ZFS users. For the former, PREEMPT and 1000 Hz tick have definite advantages.

I agree that using full PREEMPT probably provides benefit to gamers. The multimedia benefits depend on the kind of multimedia work being done. Time-sensitive transcoding operations may actually be helped by switching to PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (or even PREEMPT_NONE) because the reduced emphasis on low latency will not steal computational time from the transcoding operation. (This is more obvious in resource-constrained environments like the [Raspberry Pi](https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/1216#issuecomment-163200058).)

The ZFS issue brought my attention to this configuration, but it is not the primary motivator for the change. Like I said, I'm sure ZFS on Linux upstream will work around this latest salvo in the GPL/CDDL wars. The real question is where the center of mass is for Void users. Are most of them gamers that will be sensitive to the latency benefits of PREEMPT, are most of them interested in computational throughput that will be sensitive to the throughput costs of PREEMPT (and, to a lesser extent, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), or are the centrally clustered or uniformly distributed? The generic kernel ought to target that center of mass as best as possible.