Linux's non-preemptible kernel was chosen for what reason? For a single-processor system, why employ a non-preemptible kernel? Why is a multiprocessor system less advantageous?

For what reason did the original Linux developers settle on a non-preemptible kernel?What use case best justifies a non-preemptible kernel in a single-processor system? If there are several processors involved, however, shouldn't the advantage be multiplied?

How does cross-compilation differ from native compilation in the context of embedded software development?

Do huge computer processes and programmes benefit from being broken into smaller subsystems? Is there a benefit to logically segmenting this system?

Why did the original developers of Linux choose a kernel that did not support preemptive multitasking? What are the advantages of using a non-preemptible kernel in a system that only has one processor? Yet, why is the value diminished when using a machine with several processors?

Please describe all the parts to this question, PLEASE TYPE ALL OF YOUR ANSWERS

Why did the initial Linux developers choose for a kernel that was not preemptible?In a single processor system, what is the benefit of a non-preemptible kernel? In a multi-processor system, though, why is the benefit reduced?

Why did the developers of Linux choose for a non-preemptible kernel? What functions does a non-preemptible kernel perform in a system with a single processor? Why does the benefit diminish in systems with many processors?

The original Linux kernel wasn't preemptible because of a decision made by the programmers who made it.In a single-processor system, a non-preemptible kernel serves no use. What I don't get is why a multi-processor machine would negate the gain.