lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: a joint letter on low latency and Linux
Paul Barton-Davis writes:
> >I think people advocating the scheduling/preemption hacks should go
> >and run some exhaustive tests to find out how bad the latency can be
> >with said patch, and then identify where the remaining latencies are
> >coming from. Then fix the worst offender and run the tests again.
>
> Agreed. We have some useful tools for this.
>
> >My guess is you'll be digging yourself in deeper and deeper,
> >sprinkling random hacks in random places, as Linus put it.
>
> If this turns out to be true, I see it as pretty sad commentary on
> the state of the kernel. If its sprinkled all over with random hacks
> that cause it to avoid a return to user space for inordinate amounts
> of time, that doesn't seem to be a much better situation than the
> one in which there are a bunch of random hacks that seek to reverse
> it.

Argghhh! It's *NOT* sprinkled all over with random hacks which prevent
it from scheduling early. It's a clean design with the absence of
random hacks.

What you're asking for is the *introduction* of random hacks. Not the
reversal of random hacks. Hasn't this been made clear by now?
Is this an attempt at Newspeak or trying to snow people over with FUD?

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.500 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site